Harris not only threatened to storm the homes of legal gunowners — she supported a handgun ban



Kamala Harris' recent indication that her "values have not changed" prompted critics to wonder what besides taxpayer-funded sex changes for illegal aliens, the elimination of the Hyde Amendment, and the legalization of crack cocaine for personal consumption she still supports.

Just days after sleuths found footage of Harris threatening to storm the homes of law-abiding Americans for surprise gun inspections, CNN analyst Stephen Gutowski highlighted Harris' sponsorship of a handgun ban.

Gutowski dug up a Nov. 2005 San Jose Mercury News article indicating that San Francisco's then-Attorney General Kamala Harris sponsored Proposition H — an ordinance that banned the manufacture, distribution, sale, and transfer of handguns in San Francisco.

'Robbers, rapists and home invaders can be sure that their next victim will be helpless.'

Security guards, police officers, active members of the U.S. military, and criminals would have been the only people left holding guns had a court not killed the ban after it passed. After all, everyone was required to surrender their weapons by April 1, 2006, and would not be compensated for doing so.

The Coalition Against Prohibition stressed in the voter information pamphlet that the Harris-supported proposition denied Americans the choice to defend themselves and protect others.

"You may never need a gun to defend yourself, but someone else will: a woman alone in her apartment during a break-in, a gay man surrounded by attackers, a battered wife pursued by a stalker," wrote the coalition. "Proposition H encourages criminals. Robbers, rapists and home invaders can be sure that their next victim will be helpless."

"The sponsors of this flop have not done their homework. A long-standing California preemption statute prohibits cities from passing a patchwork of conflicting gun laws. If Prop H passes, we will have to pay for a costly lawsuit that San Francisco will lose," said the coalition.

Critics of the Harris-backed gun ban also noted that despite a similar initiative in Washington, D.C., murders continued to skyrocket.

Republican opponents of the Harris-backed gun ban quipped, "We have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes criminals will turn in their handguns."

The San Francisco Republican Party noted at the time, "One of the first laws enacted by the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) was to ban the private ownership of guns."

A group of gays, lesbians, and transvestites called "Pink Pistols" similarly denounced the ban, suggesting it would leave them cowering in their homes, "helpless to stop attacks from hurting our friends and families."

Although the gun ban was supposed go into effect in January 2006, the National Rifle Association and others filed a legal challenge, holding up its enforcement long enough for San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren — appointed to the bench by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson — to kill the ban in June 2006, indicating it was "invalid as preempted by state law."

Harris did not, however, relent in her efforts to disarm Americans.

'I support a mandatory gun buyback program.'

In 2008, she was one of the leftist district attorneys who signed an amici curiae in the Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller, claiming a total handgun ban was constitutional. Reason noted the brief to which Harris was party also suggested that the Second Amendment does not secure an individual right but rather a "collective" or "militia-related" right.

Harris told reporters in September 2019 — before her previous presidential campaign fizzled out — that she supported a coerced buyback of so-called assault weapons.

"We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory gun buyback program," Harris said in October 2019. "It's got to be smart, we got to do it the right way. But there are 5 million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we're going to have to have smart public policy that's about taking those off the streets, but doing it the right way."

'We're not taking anyone's guns away.'

The Harris' campaign website indicates that if elected, she would "ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require universal background checks, and support red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."

Despite her decades-long campaign to disarm law-abiding Americans, Harris has recently adopted the persona of a gun rights supporter, telling Oprah Winfrey at her rally last week, "If someone breaks in my house, they're getting shot."

It's presently unclear whether the gun Harris allegedly owns is a kind she has tried to ban in the past.

"Some people have been pushing a real false choice — to suggest you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away," said Harris. "I'm in favor of the Second Amendment, and I'm in favor of assault-weapons bans, universal background checks, red-flag laws."

During her debate with President Donald Trump earlier this month, Harris claimed, "We're not taking anyone's guns away."

Gutowski noted that the Harris campaign did not respond to his request for comment about her handgun ban.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action noted in July, "Gun owners should understand that Harris poses the gravest threat to their Second Amendment rights. In fact, Harris's record suggests that she does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms at all. Moreover, Harris has repeatedly called for government confiscation of some of America’s most popular firearms."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kyle Rittenhouse tells detractors at Kent State to 'cope harder' while the attacker he showed mercy to seethes outside



Kyle Rittenhouse visited Kent State University in Ohio Tuesday to speak about the importance of the Second Amendment as part of a Turning Point USA lecture series.

As with his other recent appearances, Rittenhouse was once again met with apoplectic teens apparently convinced — perhaps because of the liberal media's various false reports — that he was a "murderer" and possibly even a racist, despite having been acquitted of all charges and shooting only white men.

Among the radical leftists who gathered outside the Kent Student Center to protest the event was an individual who personally helped Rittenhouse understand just how critical firearms are to self-defense in America.

Gaige Grosskreutz, who now goes by the name Paul Prediger, addressed the angry mob and made expressly clear that he has a chip on his shoulder extra to the scar on his forearm.

The one who got away

Grosskreutz was one of the men who swarmed Rittenhouse during a BLM riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020. Whereas the domestic abuser with multiple convictions and the violent child molester who attacked the then-17-year-old Rittenhouse died for doing so, Grosskreutz was simply disarmed with a well-placed and merciful shot.

During Rittenhouse's murder trial, defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi asked Grosskreutz, "When you were standing three to five feet from [Rittenhouse] with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"

"Correct," answered Grosskreutz.

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down and pointed at him, that he fired, right?" said Chirafisi.

"Correct," said Grosskreutz.

— (@)

While ever keen to paint himself as an innocent victim, Grosskreutz was charged with a firearm offense prior to going after the minor with a gun in 2020.

According to the New York Post, Grosskreutz's lengthy criminal record also includes burglary, drunk driving, and a domestic incident. In 2010, he was apparently arrested and charged with smashing his grandmother in the face.

Grosskreutz tries again to stop Rittenhouse

The Ohio Student Association noted in a statement ahead of the protest that "Gaige Grosskreutz, surviving victim of the deadly massacre, alongside Kent students, will be hosting a press conference, followed by a teach-in, on campus to condemn Rittenhouse's status as a guest speaker and highlight the harm that his hateful and violent white supremacy inflicts on our campuses and communities."

Despite there being no indication Rittenhouse holds any racial prejudices, the OSA further claimed Rittenhouse's presence "embodies a deeply disturbing ideology of white supremacism."

On Tuesday, the OHA's guest of honor, Grosskreutz, indicated he was ending his silence.

"While I've simply tried to live my life and not relive those moments, Kyle Rittenhouse has taken a different path," said Grosskreutz.

In February 2023, Grosskreutz added Rittenhouse to the civil lawsuit he originally filed against the city and county of Kenosha along with local law enforcement officials. Rittenhouse has responded with a countersuit.

"He has used every moment to gloat and to make light of taking life," continued the leftist. "As if that were not enough, Kyle has embraced and been embraced by those who peddle hateful rhetoric, who believe in nationalism that excludes those who do not look like or think like them, and who have sought to amplify a troubling desire for violence against supposed political, cultural, and religious enemies."

Grosskreutz declared, "Enough of Kyle and his rhetoric, enough of the celebration of loss of human life, enough of the flawed logic because a 17-year-old who shot me and killed two others with an illegally obtained firearm, an illegally carried firearm is now somehow qualified to be a champion of gun rights."

#NOW Paul Prediger, Formerly Known As Gaige Grosskreutz, a man who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on August 25 2020 in Kenosha, speaks on Kent State University campus ahead of Kyle Rittenhouse speech tonight.
— (@)

Grosskreutz failed in this latest attempt to stop Rittenhouse, who then took questions for nearly 40 minutes.

"Thank God I'm still alive and here to share my story," Rittenhouse told the crowd. "Because they really wanted to kill me. And it makes a lot of these leftists upset that I'm coming to these universities to share my story. And all I can say to them is: 'Cope harder.'"

WYSO-FM reported that during his speech, Rittenhouse called for the Ohio legislature to implement "campus carry" laws to ensure that law-abiding students have the means to defend themselves against various threats.

"What happens if these Hamas Palestinian terrorists come to the U.S. and try to attack us?" said Rittenhouse. "Are we supposed to be left defenseless?"

Rittenhouse's support for the Constitution and the ability for Americans to defend themselves did not resonate with the mob outside, which chanted, "Murderer!"

#NOW "Murderer! Murderer!" protesters chant outside of Kyle Rittenhouse TPUSA speaking event at Kent State University in Ohio. Protesters flip attendees off ad they leave the event.
— (@)

Pat Millhoff, a Kent State alumnus who attended the university around the time the National Guard shot student supporters of the genocidal Red Khmers, told WYSO, "So, it's just appalling to me that they would bring this particular speaker to campus so close to May 4th."

"I just think it's glorifying him. So I agree with free speech, but I'm just not sure this was the appropriate time and place to have this young man here," added Millhoff.

Despite the apparent desire on campus to shut down the event, a spokeswoman for the university stated, "We cannot ban speech because it would go against a core value and because of well-established laws governing free speech on public university campuses."

When leaving the campus, Rittenhouse thanked the protesters, telling them, "You've been a wonderful crowd. Wonderful crowd! Thank you!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

LA homeowner defends toddler and turf from four home invaders, wins duel



Police responded to a burglary call from a Los Angeles residence early Saturday morning, finding a corpse and a trail of blood. Neither belonged to the homeowner, whose two-armed security system prevailed against four home invaders.

According to the Los Angeles Police Department, three to four men in their 20s entered the Granada Hills home in the 11400 block of Swinton Avenue "with the intent to burglarize the location." While the suspects successfully stole into the house, they discovered getting out would be far more difficult.

The homeowner, who indicated the suspects were all wearing dark clothing, hoodies and masks, was inside at the time of the incursion. He had more than property to defend, granted inside the home with him was a grandmother and a toddler.

Police indicated that once inside, a suspect pointed a gun at the homeowner. However, the master of the house quickly mastered the situation, blowing the suspect away with his handgun.

Following the decisive duel, it appears the homeowner may have also left one of the three fleeing suspects with a souvenir. After all, the LAPD indicated there is reason to suspect "an additional suspect was injured during the incident due to a trail of blood located during the investigation."

Beside their accomplice, suspects also left behind what is believed to be their getaway car at the scene, a black BMW sedan.

The LAPD indicated no one beside the suspects were injured during the incident.

Police indicated Sunday that they are withholding the dead suspect's identity until next of kin have been notified.

A neighbor who asked not to be identified told KTLA-TV, "Well the suspects messed with the wrong homeowner, you know."

"Makes me feel good that people are actually protect[ing] their homes," he added.

Pat Walsh, another nearby resident, said, "We've been having burglaries every day in this neighborhood and so I'm not surprised, I'm not surprised at all this has happened. It's a real problem here and the residents here are fed up."

The homeowner was detained by police and taken to Devonshire Community Police Station for questioning but was subsequently released.

Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton stressed, "Anyone that's inside of their residence that is faced with a deadly threat and is perceived as a deadly threat has a right to protect themselves."

There have been a string of burglaries in the area where homeowners have not all been so fortunate.

KTLA reported that on Nov. 29, another Granada Hills home had $150,000 in valuables stolen by burglars. The family had been out Christmas shopping but raced home after spotting intruders rifling through the house on a baby monitor. The father caught up with the suspects and managed to ram their car multiple times, but couldn't mete out justice because he was ultimately outgunned. He did, however, get out unscathed.

"It's insane," said Maria Turley, a local resident. "We're not safe anymore. We're a quiet little community. I've been here for 28 years. This doesn't happen, but it's become normal now."

As of Nov. 25, Los Angeles had 13,407 reported burglaries this year, a 15.2% increase over 2021. The LAPD indicated there had only been 1,377 arrests for burglary.

Total property crimes in the city have increased 2.1% over last year and 15.4% over 2021.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gun groups ready for showdown after Newsom doubles gun taxes and adds new limits on where and how Americans can exercise their 2A rights in California



Just hours after introducing penalties for California schools that protect children from LGBT and identitarian propaganda, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom doubled taxes on guns and introduced new limits on Second Amendment rights in the state. According to the governor, who has ruled out a 2024 presidential run, the 23 gun control bills he ratified Tuesday "will make our communities and families safer."

Gun groups have already taken legal action, stressing that the new laws are "unconstitutional."

While some Democrats in the state are in denial about their constitutionality of their initiatives — even after having their ban on large-capacity magazines struck down last week by U.S. District Court Judge Benitez — Newsom has acknowledged that the new gun control legislation might similarly be short-lived.

Among the state's new penalties and restrictions on law-abiding gun-owners is Democratic Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel's AB 28, which imposes an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition sold by gun manufacturers and dealers. According to the governor's office, this tax will take $160 million annually out of the pockets of Americans keen to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The 11% tax, which will be added atop existing 10%-11% federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition, will go into effect in July 2024.

Senate Bill 2, also ratified Tuesday by Newsom, sets out subjective language concerning who can carry firearms in public and vastly grows the number of "sensitive public spaces" where guns are prohibited, such that every park, every hospital, all public transportation, any place that sells alcohol, libraries, churches, banks, zoos, and various other places are now effectively gun-free zones — at least where law-abiding citizens are concerned.

Furthermore, SB 2 requires not only that California residents be 21 years old as opposed to 18 in order to obtain a concealed carry permit but also that applicants provide character references and agree to have their social media pages and publicly available statements reviewed.

Despite Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino's contention that SB 2 is "constitutional and consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in the Bruen decision," the Los Angeles times indicated this law could nevertheless result in a Supreme Court fight.

Newsom has himself acknowledged that the laws may "mean nothing if the federal courts are throwing them out," reported NPR.

"We feel very strongly that these bills meet the [new standard], and they were drafted accordingly," added Newsom. "But I'm not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda."

The California Rifle and Pistol Association and other pro-Second Amendment groups filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging SB 2, suggesting the legislation is the latest in an ongoing effort by California politicians to "eviscerate the very right to be armed in public that the plain language of the Second Amendment secures and that our forebears uniformly understood to preexist any constitutional text."

"California's newly passed Senate Bill 2 ... turns the Bruen decision on its head, making nearly every public space in California a 'sensitive place' (in name only), and forbidding firearm carry even after someone has undertaken the lengthy and expensive process to be issued a concealed handgun license ('CCW permit') under state law."

Extra to SB 2, AB 28, and over a dozen other bills, Newsom ratified:

  • SB 452, which requires all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state to use microstamping technology whereby unique identifiers are etched into expended cartridges for easier tracking by law enforcement;
  • AB 455, which allows courts to prevent individuals participating in mental health diversion programs from possessing or buying guns;
  • AB 725, which changes the definition of a firearm to include the frame or receiver of a weapon;
  • AB 732, which beefs up the process by which guns are confiscated from convicts; and
  • AB 92, which makes it a felony for convicted violent felons to own or buy body armor.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, stressed that "these laws will not make us safer," reported NPR.

"They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court's affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals' right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family," said Michel. "They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down."

Kris Brown, the president of the gun control group Brady, lauded the new laws, saying, "Several of these bills aim to address the supply side of the gun industry with policies that will mandate the use of merchant category codes for firearm retailers, require important training for firearm dealers and their employees, and crack down on the production of ghost guns. All of these initiatives will help prevent firearms from landing in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rittenhouse defends himself again from leftist attacker Gaige Grosskreutz, this time with a countersuit



Kyle Rittenhouse shot three attackers who mobbed him during a BLM riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020. He was cleared of all charges in 2021.

While he fatally dropped two of his attackers, domestic abuser with multiple convictions and a violent child molester, Rittenhouse merely disarmed the third attacker, Gaige Grosskreutz, with a well-placed shot to the arm.

In February, Grosskreutz — who advanced on the then-17-year-old with a loaded weapon — added Rittenhouse to the civil lawsuit he originally filed against the city and county of Kenosha along with local law enforcement officials.

Rittenhouse announced Saturday that he will be launching a countersuit against Grosskreutz for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

\u201cToday I have filed a counter lawsuit against Mr. Grosskreutz-for assault and emotional distress we look forward to holding him accountable in court. \nYou can support me and help me with this lawsuit by donating at https://t.co/GHncGiUx5Z\u201d
— Kyle Rittenhouse (@Kyle Rittenhouse) 1681516912

"With the prayers, love, and support of countless Patriotic and freedom-loving Americans, Kyle beat the odds, won his freedom, and proved to a nation that justice is possible, even in the face of overwhelming political and societal pressures. Unfortunately, Kyle finds himself with his back up against a wall again," says Rittenhouse's GiveSendGo page, where he seeks to raise money both for his legal defense and offense.

The page suggests that recent efforts to penalize Rittenhouse for defending himself are "intended to degrade further the protections afforded to us under the Second Amendment of The United States Constitution and our God-give Right to Self Defense."

Gregg Re, investigative producer of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," replied "lmao" to the announcement on Twitter and provided a link to Grosskreutz's testimony at Rittenhouse's murder trial, where the leftist admitted to taking aim at Rittenhouse with his loaded handgun.

During Grosskreutz's cross-examination, defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi posed the question: "When you were standing three to five feet from [Rittenhouse] with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"

"Correct," responded Grosskreutz.

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down and pointed at him, that he fired, right?" said Chirafisi.

Grosskreutz again answered in the affirmative.

Rittenhouse trial: Key state witness admits he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot youtu.be

Despite ostensibly admitting in court to being an aggressor in the incident, Grosskreutz, who was previously charged with a firearm offense, paints a different picture in his lawsuit.

The leftist's lawsuit alleges that Grosskreutz "approached with his hands in the air to try to ease the situation and stop the killing," reported Fox News Digital.

"Defendant Rittenhouse instead shot Mr. Grosskreutz in the bicep, leaving a gaping wound. Thankfully, Mr. Grosskreutz did not die that day," says the lawsuit. "But he must live with the physical and emotional wounds inflicted by Defendant Rittenhouse and the Defendants who deputized and enabled him. The conduct of the Defendants in this case directly caused Gaige Grosskreutz’s injury."
Upon being added to Grosskreutz's lawsuit, Rittenhouse deemed it an "attempt to drown anyone who legally and justifiably defends there [sic] lives from attackers in a mountain of legal debt. We can not let them win. If they can come after me they will come after you."
According to Rittenhouse's countersuit, obtained by the Kenosha County Eye, "Counter-Defendant Grosskreutz committed unlawful conduct by carrying a concealed weapon without a valid license; running up on Counter-Plaintiff Rittenhouse with his weapon drawn as Rittenhouse lay on the ground; feigning surrender; pointing a loaded pistol at Rittenhouse’s head; and moving in for the kill."
Contrary to Grosskreutz's claim of seeking to "ease the situation," the countersuit says, "By running up on Counter-Plaintiff Mr. Rittenhouse with his weapon drawn as Rittenhouse lay on the ground; feigning surrender; pointing a loaded pistol at Mr. Rittenhouse’s head; and moving in to for the kill; Counter-Defendant Grosskreutz placed Mr. Rittenhouse in a reasonable apprehension of imminent and harmful contact."
"Counter-Defendant Grosskreutz intended to place Mr. Rittenhouse in apprehension of imminent and harmful contact by attempting to execute him."

Rittenhouse is seeking compensation and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering, as well as declaratory relief.

Rittenhouse, represented by Mark Richards and Natalie Wisco, demands a jury trial.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!