This week, we got some newly-unearthed comments on gun policy from Kamala Harris. They shed new light on what she thought about gun bans and school security while she was working as San Francisco’s District Attorney.
The first clip comes from a 2006 speech where Harris said she didn’t think the handgun ban she’d supported would actually survive court scrutiny. Interestingly, she thought the Second Amendment would doom it. The second clip comes from a 2010 speech to the same group and shows her calling for more school resource officers and metal detectors to protect students. Harris has not always held these positions, so it’s interesting to hear her thinking from her early career and see how it has changed over time and consider how that might impact the election.
Speaking of the election, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman does a deep dive into how gun policy might determine the outcome of the race that might determine control of the House of Representatives. And he looks at the final fundraising reports for all the big gun groups we’re going to see before November 5th. Jake also lays out the new template for holding government or military agencies liable for their mistakes that led to mass shootings.
Plus, Cam Edwards joins the podcast to dissect the likely fallout from the NRA’s animal cruelty story. We have a ton of stories down in the links section, too. Oh, and The Dispatch is still offering a free month of its membership to Reload readers!
Audio: Harris Doubted Constitutionality of San Francisco Handgun Ban She Backed
By Stephen Gutowski
Vice President Kamala Harris said the pistol possession ban she backed as San Francisco District Attorney was likely unconstitutional in a recently unearthed audio tape.
During a 2006 talk with the Commonwealth Club of California, Harris said the previous year’s ballot measure banning handguns was unlikely to survive a court battle. Her comments come about a year after she supported passage of the measure and about a year before she signed onto a Supreme Court brief defending Washington, DC’s similar ban.
“In a city like San Francisco, with our history, is there any justification for anyone to carry a gun, except for law enforcement, and why not ban them completely in the city?” moderator Mary Cranston asked Harris in audio first published by The Washington Free Beacon.
“Well, there’s been a measure on the ballot actually to do that, and it’s currently being challenged,” Harris replied, “and there’s a question about its constitutionality because, of course, the Constitution of the United States says that we do have a right to legally possess firearms.”
Harris Backed More School Resource Officers, Metal Detectors in 2010 Speech
By Stephen Gutowski
Vice President Kamala Harris took an aggressive stance on school security during her time as San Francisco District Attorney.
In a 2010 speech to the Commonwealth Club of California, Harris backed adding more security measures to protect students in city schools. She said she would prefer not to take aggressive security measures but felt they were necessary. She said upping the number of police officers in school and setting up metal detectors were two ideas she’d support.
“The reality, again the harsh reality, is that if these children, as many do, think that when they walk onto the school playground, one of their classmates has a gun, they’re not going to focus, and they will not be able to be in an environment where they can learn,” Harris said in a speech uncovered by The Reload. “So, whatever we need to do to make that school safe, I say we have to do. I’d like to end violence and rid all communities of illegal weapons, but, until we do that, then we need to have safe classrooms, and if that means having a metal detector or having more school resource officers, then, you know, tough times are cause for tough measures.”
Analysis: The Key Race Where Guns Could Play a Decisive Role [Member Exclusive]
By Jake Fogleman
Despite plenty of fertile ground for candidates to exploit the issue, gun politics has been mostly an afterthought in this year’s presidential contest. In one critical congressional race, however, it could help make the difference in who controls the House after November.
Maine Congressman Jared Golden (D.) is locked in a highly competitive bid for re-election against Republican challenger and former NASCAR driver Austin Theriault in Maine’s Second Congressional District. The seat, seen by leaders of both parties as essential to their hopes of holding majority control of the chamber next year, has predictably attracted a raft of outside attention from groups looking to sway the outcome. One of the most potent and consistent lines of attack from those hoping to flip the seat: Golden’s recent shift in favor of an “assault weapon” ban.
“The Washington liberals changed Jared Golden,” an attack ad from the conservative Restoration PAC begins. “Congressman Golden now supports Biden’s radical gun control agenda. That’s why Golden is F-rated by Gun Owners of Maine. Jared Golden won’t protect our Second Amendment rights. He’s with Biden and Kamala now.”
If you’re a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, buy a membership today to get exclusive access!
AD: The Dispatch. No outrage. Just facts.
Sick of the half-truths and partisan spin this election cycle? Get past the bluster and get back to the facts by joining The Dispatch.
Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes launched The Dispatch in 2019 to build an enduring presence on the center-right for original reporting and thoughtful analysis. No insulting clickbait, no false outrage, no annoying auto-play videos—just reliable journalism that prioritizes context, depth, and understanding. As we rush towards Election Day, these values matter more than ever.
Join 400,000+ loyal readers and start reading The Dispatch today.
The Reload readers: Claim your exclusive 30-day, all-access FREE trial today.
Gun-Control Groups Outraise Opponents in Final Report Before Election Day
By Jake Fogleman
The leading gun-control groups maintained their political fundraising advantage over their gun-rights opponents, according to the final monthly data drop before the 2024 election.
The Political Action Committees (PACs) for Everytown, Giffords, and Brady collectively brought in just under $1.7 million in September, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings posted this week. Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund raised just under $700,000 for the month. In total, all of the gun-rights PACs that publish monthly FEC updates took in a little under $1.26 million.
Click here to continue reading.
Podcast: The Fallout From the NRA’s Animal Cruelty Story (Ft. Cam Edwards)
By Stephen Gutowski
This week, we unfortunately have to talk about a story that comes with a content warning.
News of NRA CEO Doug Hamlin’s involvement in the torture and killing of a cat during college resurfaced on Monday. Hamlin has denied “direct” involvement, but contemporaneous reporting indicates his role was more than ancillary. Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms joins the show to work out what this all means for the already-battered NRA.
You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel.
Plus, Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover new polling that finds the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is more popular than ever. We also talk about the Court’s recent move to grant, vacate, and remand a lower court decision that sided with pro-gun plaintiffs. We briefly touch on some recent ad spending blitzes from the gun groups before wrapping up with a discussion of what either a Trump or Harris presidency might mean in practice for gun policy.
Analysis: Mass Shooting Lawsuit Against the Army Has a Template for Success [Member Exclusive]
By Jake Fogleman
For the second time, a branch of the armed forces may soon find itself under legal scrutiny for failing to prevent a mass shooting carried out by one of its members. There’s reason to think that suit could succeed.
On Tuesday, lawyers representing a group of 100 survivors and family members of victims of last year’s mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, served the US Government legal notice of their intent to sue the Department of Defense, the US Army, and the Keller Army Community Hospital for negligence. They allege the Army failed to adequately respond to warning signs and an explicit threat to commit a mass shooting from a reservist before he ultimately carried out his attack last October.
The shooter went on to kill 18 and wound 13 others in what became the deadliest mass shooting in Maine history.
“In the year since the mass shooting, there have been several investigations and many facts have come to light that show that the Army could have—and should have—acted,” Travis Brennan, one of the attorneys representing the families, said in a statement. “[It] is now abundantly clear that there were many opportunities to intervene that would have prevented the tragic events of October 25.”
If you’re a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, buy a membership today for exclusive access to this piece and hundreds of others!
Outside The Reload
Second Circuit’s Second Opinion on NY Carry Laws Same As the First | Bearing Arms | By Cam Edwards
ATF Revokes Highest Number of FFLs in Two Decades | The Trace | By Champe Barton
As YouTube cracks down on gun videos, some ‘GunTubers’ are panicking | NBC News | By David Ingram
SCOTUS GVRs Another Felon-in-Possession Case | Courthouse News Service | By Kelsey Reichmann
That’s it for this week in guns.
I’ll see you all next week.
Thanks,
Stephen Gutowski
Founder
The Reload
