Hypocrisy, Thy Name is…

SCOPE (and many others) often point out the double standard of the anti-2A’s.  For instance: anti-2Aers want to disarm citizens and make citizens unable to defend themselves while the anti-2Aers enjoy the protection of people with guns.

Kamala Harris has led that effort, which plays well in her home state of California, which is also heavily anti-2A.

Kostas Moros, an attorney representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association, posted this on X: "…California law classifies ALL Glocks as 'unsafe handguns' because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping," (Emphasis added.)

"The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still 'unsafe handguns…We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states).”

Kamala Harris supported the Unsafe Handgun Act.

Guess what gun Harris owns? 

During her 60 Minutes interview, Harris stated that she owns a Glock.

Harris owns an 'unsafe handgun'?

As the former district attorney of San Francisco, which is a law enforcement position, she would have legally been allowed to purchase and own an "unsafe handgun."  But if it is ’unsafe,’ why is law enforcement allowed to use an ‘unsafe’ handgun? 

Harris was attorney general of California in 2013 when the Justice Department authorized the state to institute a 2007 law requiring new models of handguns to be micro-stamped. In 2023, the California legislature passed a law banning the sale of any handgun that isn't "microstamping-enabled".  (Since repealed.)

Is Harris Glock micro-stamped? Even if not the law, doesn’t she still believe in microstamping?

Whether you are pro or anti-abortion, it is interesting to read the reasoning behind some rulings and how they have ‘aged’ when applied to other issues, like defending the 2nd Amendment.

Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey were the two cases, at the federal level, that allowed abortion.

The plurality in Casey – Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter – believed that the public “should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread — that a new majority … could ‘by dint of numbers’ alone expunge their rights.” (Emphasis added.)

These words are worth repeating: “a new majority … could ‘by dint of numbers’ alone expunge their rights.”

The current majority of the Supreme Court proved that they will defend our 2nd Amendment rights in NYSRPA v Bruen. 

What is the reaction of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and many Democrats?  They wanted to add new members to the Supreme Court, nominated by (anti-2A) Biden, so they would then have a ‘new majority” which could ”by dint of numbers alone expunge their rights.’

It should be noted that Biden and Harris are big defenders of abortion but apparently these two lawyers have not read the reasoning behind these decisions.  Or if they have, they don’t believe the basic rationale should be applied to issues they don’t like.

Kind of like they only believe our 1st and 2nd Amendment protected rights don’t apply to issues they don’ like.

I wonder how they will feel about ‘packing’ the Supreme Court if Trump is elected President?  Would they also do a flip-flop?