SAN FRANCISCO, CA - Video footage of a press conference from 2007 showing then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris extolling the virtues of a law she helped draft provided a horrifying vision of the presidential hopeful threatening gun owners. Specifically, she said that law enforcement could just "walk into" their homes to inspect their firearm storage at will.
As reported by Fox News, Harris told the reporters in May 2007, "We're going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community. Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs."
She told the gathered press, "When we create laws, it's not only about creating an opportunity, if you will, to prosecute someone for committing a crime, but more importantly, when we legislate our values, it's about trying to encourage certain types of behavior."
The law on "safe storage" has since been challenged and was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals claiming it "does not substantially prevent law-abiding citizens from using firearms to defend themselves in the home." However, in light of the more recent Bruen v. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. and California's Miller v. Bonta rulings, these laws could still be reversed.
When challenged on her past policies, Kamala Harris has insisted that her values "have not changed."
Should that be the case, then Harris could represent a policy that is openly hostile to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as well as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
In both cases, it would fall to law enforcement officials to walk the unenviable line of attempting to uphold the law, while the law violates the Constitution they've sworn to uphold.
As reported by Fox News, Harris told the reporters in May 2007, "We're going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community. Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs."
She told the gathered press, "When we create laws, it's not only about creating an opportunity, if you will, to prosecute someone for committing a crime, but more importantly, when we legislate our values, it's about trying to encourage certain types of behavior."
Then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom eventually would sign the city law passed by the board of supervisors into law with a raft of aggressive infringements of the Second Amendment.🚨Kamala Harris wants mass gun confiscation, and she’s willing to weaponize the government to enter your home and seize your legally owned guns:
— NRA (@NRA) September 18, 2024
“Just because you LEGALLY possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home… pic.twitter.com/4ET5m7ToSx
The law on "safe storage" has since been challenged and was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals claiming it "does not substantially prevent law-abiding citizens from using firearms to defend themselves in the home." However, in light of the more recent Bruen v. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. and California's Miller v. Bonta rulings, these laws could still be reversed.
When challenged on her past policies, Kamala Harris has insisted that her values "have not changed."
Should that be the case, then Harris could represent a policy that is openly hostile to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as well as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
In both cases, it would fall to law enforcement officials to walk the unenviable line of attempting to uphold the law, while the law violates the Constitution they've sworn to uphold.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments