In the latest episode of “Anti-Gunner Elitists are Feckless Authoritarian Hypocrites,” we have Vice President Kamala Harris, who has been trying desperately to convince the nation that she is not an anti-gunner elitist.

During a recent interview on “60 Minutes,” Harris once again pulled out the “I’m Totally a Gun Owner” shtick and informed the nation that she supposedly owns a Glock pistol.

Host Bill Whitaker asked about Harris’ firearm. “I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time. And — I mean, look, Bill, my background is in law enforcement. And — so there you go,” the vice president responded.

“Have you ever fired it?” Whitaker asked.

“Yes. Of course I have,” Harris cackled. “At a shooting range. Yes, of course I have.”

CBS: “What kind of gun do you own?”

Kamala: “I have a Glock”

CBS: “Have you ever fired it?”

Kamala: “Yes. Of course. Ha Ha Ha.” pic.twitter.com/lBauzgII5S

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 8, 2024

Yet, Harris has been a strong champion for the type of gun control that is aimed at making it harder for law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. But by admitting that she owns a Glock, Harris has once again put her hypocrisy on full display, as attorney Kostas Moros pointed out in a post on X noting that California, Harris’ home state, “classifies ALL Glocks as ‘unsafe handguns.’”

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).

She supported the Unsafe Handgun Act and expanded it such that microstamping began to be enforced in 2013. So why does she own an “unsafe handgun”?

Note that 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.

The only… https://t.co/ksE5BaQzkn

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 8, 2024

In a follow-up post, Moros argued that “If a Glock is ‘safe’ enough for Kamala Harris, she should call for the repeal of the handgun roster so Californians can buy more modern Glocks.”

“The lives of millions of regular people aren’t worth less than hers,” he added.

The Unsafe Handgun Act was passed in 1999 and went into effect at the beginning of 2001. The measure regulates the sale and manufacture of handguns deemed unsafe for public use. Only handguns that meet specific safety requirements—such as having certain safety features like a loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, and passing drop tests—are allowed to be bought and sold in the Golden State.

The legislation also imposed a microstamping requirement, mandating that semiautomatic pistols imprint identifying information on each round.

Moros is right. The law classifies Glocks – especially the fourth and fifth-generation models as “unsafe” and prohibits their sale. Of course, law enforcement officers are exempt from these restrictions because they wear uniforms and badges and are part of the government.

So, how in the blue hell does Harris own a Glock when it is supposed to be prohibited in California? Perhaps it was because she served as the state’s attorney general, which makes her more equal than other Californians.

Of course, there is also the possibility that Harris is fibbing about her gun ownership, and Glock, being one of the most popular name brands for firearms, is the first thing that came to her mind when Whitaker asked what kind of gun she owns.

But, from where I sit, it seems more likely that she owns the gun despite California’s restrictions. Like other anti-gunner elitists, her approach to gun ownership is “gun control for thee, but not for me,” which is yet another reason why nobody should take her seriously when it comes to gun legislation.