Kamala Harris Fought The Supreme Court To Prevent Citizens From Owning Handguns

During her tenure as California Attorney General, Kamala Harris opposed the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In this case, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals' right to own firearms for self-defense, particularly within one's home.

Her opposition centered on a few key arguments:

1. Public Safety Concerns: Harris emphasized that local governments need the ability to enact reasonable regulations on firearms to protect public safety. She argued that allowing broad gun rights, as affirmed in Heller, could lead to more gun violence, particularly in urban areas.

2. Collective vs. Individual Right: She incorrectly supported the view that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a collective right tied to state militias rather than an individual's right to own firearms. This interpretation would allow more regulation of private firearm ownership where they can ban citizens from owning handguns in their homes.

3. Judicial Precedent: Harris referenced earlier judicial precedents that allowed for greater restrictions on gun ownership, arguing that those restrictions were consistent with public safety goals and constitutional law before Heller reinterpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right.

4. State and Local Autonomy: Harris has argued that states and municipalities should retain the power to regulate guns as they see fit, tailored to their unique needs and public safety conditions.

Her overall stance is unconstitutional, as is proven by District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).