Kamala Harris is the most anti-gun candidate who has ever been as close as she is to becoming president, even if she has been less than forthcoming on her specific views on firearms and the Second Amendment. It doesn’t help that she has avoided any meaningful interaction from the media, where she can be pressed to explain her positions. What few appearances she has made have been absolute disasters, even though they have all been with compliant Harris supporters who have handled the candidate with kid gloves.

Without any clearly explained positions coming from Harris for her current campaign, we can only rely on her history of firearm-related statements and the few vague comments she or her campaign surrogates have made as she seeks to usurp the job currently held by Joe Biden.

To be perfectly honest, when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment, Kamala Harris is running a campaign of disinformation, obfuscation, and lies; a campaign supported by compliant “journalists” and sham organizations manufactured to help obliterate our rights as gun owners.

While Harris has tried to claim she supports the Second Amendment, she has yet to demonstrate that with either words or deeds over a career where she has drawn paychecks from only one employer: Taxpayers.

We’ve noted several times that, as a candidate for president during the 2020 election cycle, Harris stated that she didn’t want to just ban semi-automatic firearms, but also wanted to confiscate those firearms already owned by law-abiding citizens. She is now trying to hide from that past. She wants gun owners to now believe confiscation is no longer part of her plan, but we simply do not believe her.

Sadly, although not surprisingly, many members of the media are more than happy to give Harris cover on her new claim that she does not want to confiscate firearms. The ironically misnamed website FactCheck.org tried to give Harris cover, claiming NRA “misleadingly claims that Harris will ‘ban law-abiding citizens from owning’ guns and ‘seize your legally owned guns.’ Her proposal would not ban all guns or seize any guns.”

But NRA has not said Harris wants to “ban all guns.” She very well may, but what we have said, and what Harris has said, is she wants to ban what she calls “assault weapons.” These are guns—and some of the most popular guns sold in America—so, yes, she wants to ban law-abiding citizens from owning these guns, as well as others.

To put a finer point on Harris wanting to ban guns—and not just so-called “assault weapons”—in 2005, when she was San Francisco district attorney, the now-vice president was listed as a sponsor of Proposition H, which was a ballot measure that sought to ban the possession of ALL handguns in the city. While the measure was approved by far-left San Francisco voters, it was struck down by the courts after NRA challenged it.

And to be clear, this was not a ban on the future sale or possession of handguns, it was a ban on ALL handguns, which means, had it stood, firearms would either have to be removed from the city or turned over to authorities (i.e., confiscated).

Thus far, Harris has not yet stated she no longer supports such a ban and confiscation scheme—either for San Francisco gun owners or gun owners writ large.

FactCheck goes on to claim the Harris campaign noted the candidate “is no longer advocating that Americans be required to give up weapons they legally purchased.” Now, that didn’t come directly from Harris, but from some unnamed campaign staffer. It might be more believable (but not really) if Harris made the statement, then elaborated as to why she has changed (we do not believe she has) her position.

The website goes on to note, presumably as a defense of Harris’s claim she is “in favor of the Second Amendment,” that the candidate stated, “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.” This was claimed during her debate with Donald Trump, after Trump accurately noted Harris supports banning and confiscating firearms. FactCheck also refers to a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, where Harris claimed, “I’m a gun owner; Tim Walz is a gun owner. If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”

At least part of that statement to Winfrey is likely accurate, as Harris is under the protection of the US Secret Service, and her current “house” is located on the very secure grounds of the US Naval Observatory. But if anyone thought Harris meant she, as a gun owner, would use lethal force to defend herself against an intruder, one of her advisors, Keisha Lance Bottoms, later clarified that the comment was “a joke.”

We are not sure if the “joke” was about Harris shooting someone, or if it was about her being a gun owner; or if we should simply embrace the power of “and.” Regardless, all of this simply reinforces the notion of Harris’s stated views on guns being part of a concerted disinformation campaign.

Oh, and about the claim she is “in favor of the Second Amendment”? That could also use some clarification. Let’s not forget that Harris endorsed an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, and that said right should not be incorporated to the states. Just what, exactly, does she mean when she says she is “in favor of the Second Amendment”?

Then there’s the media’s disingenuous approach to promoting candidate Harris. To that, we offer this:

A New Jersey online news outlet, NJ.com, recently ran a story with the headline “Harris gets stunning endorsement from group that normally backs Trump.” The story related that Harris had “snagged the endorsement of a national law enforcement organization,,,,”

But the organization, Police Leaders for Community Safety (PLCS), was invented earlier this year, and this is the group’s first EVER political endorsement. So the headline is patently false, as the group has not only never endorsed Trump, it has never endorsed ANYONE. Calling the group a “national law enforcement organization” may not be patently false, but considering USA Today reported PLCS “describes itself as an organization that represents dozens of police officials” hardly evokes the image of a significant “national law enforcement organization.”

A quick review of the PLCS website reveals that the organization is little more than yet another member of the anti-gun industrial complex. Its focus appears to be on promoting anti-gun laws, and its current President and CEO is Gail Hoffman, who served as Legislative Director of Handgun Control, Inc. (now known simply as Brady), from 1987-1992, then served in the anti-gun Clinton Administration.

So, yes, this is simply a sham endorsement for a deceitful candidate from an artificial “law enforcement” group.

In contrast to the endorsement from PLCA, Donald Trump was endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s oldest law enforcement organization, and the National Association of Police Organizations, founded in 1978. These groups represent more than 300,000 and 200,000 law enforcement officers, respectively.

We know that the vast majority of those who regularly read our alerts would never be taken in by Harris’ campaign of disinformation, obfuscation, and lies on her views and ultimate goals when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment, nor would they be swayed by her dishonest supporters in the media or artificially generated “law enforcement” groups. But there are millions of gun owners who may not be as well informed. That includes the estimated tens-of-millions of new gun owners that have made their first firearm purchase over the last few years.

It is imperative that you readers reach out to fellow gun owners or like-minded supporters of freedom who may not be as well informed to make sure they know the truth about where the candidates stand in the upcoming elections. The future of the Second Amendment is clearly at stake.

-Courtesy NRA-ILA