Harris just told you exactly what they'll do to your gun rights

The bottom line

Kamala Harris went on a livestream in May 2026 and told you exactly what Democrats will do if they ever control Washington again: pack the Supreme Court, gut the Electoral College, and kill every gun rights precedent that protects you. She didn’t say it with a whisper or a hedge. She said it out loud, called it a “no bad ideas brainstorm,” and laughed about it. If you own a gun, that clip should terrify you.

---

This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.

---

I don’t usually spend a lot of time on Kamala Harris. She lost. The election is over. But what she said on that “Win with Black Women” livestream a few days ago isn’t about 2024. It’s about what happens next time, and every gun owner in this country should know about it.

She called it a “no bad ideas brainstorm” for the Democratic Party. Abolish or work around the Electoral College. Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico to add four Democratic senators overnight. Hold Supreme Court nominees “accountable” for lying. And expand the Supreme Court. Pack it. Add seats until the constitutional majority that produced District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and Caetano v. Massachusetts is gone.

She wasn’t some fringe activist. She was the sitting Vice President of the United States. She was a few million votes from being president. She’s now the frontrunner for 2028.

And she just laid out exactly what she plans to do with the courts.

What we’d lose

People gloss over the case names. That’s a mistake, because the cases are the point.

Heller (2008) is the foundation. Before Justice Scalia wrote that opinion, the individual right to keep and bear arms was genuinely contested legal territory. Courts across the country were upholding handgun bans and firearm storage laws by treating the Second Amendment as a collective militia right. Heller ended that: the Second Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected to any militia, to keep commonly used firearms in your home for self-defense. The D.C. handgun ban was struck down. 5-4. One vote.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) incorporated that right against the states. Before McDonald, Heller technically only applied to federal enclaves. After McDonald, your right to keep a handgun in your Chicago apartment is constitutionally protected against state action. Also 5-4.

Bruen (2022) is the one the anti-gun left hates most. Justice Thomas wrote the majority and it completely restructured how courts analyze Second Amendment challenges. No more interest-balancing tests. No more “this law is important enough to override your rights.” Under Bruen, the government has to show any firearms regulation is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the founding. That’s a high bar. It’s supposed to be. We’re talking about a constitutional right. Bruen also explicitly held that the right to bear arms extends outside the home.

Caetano (2016) is less famous but it matters. Massachusetts convicted a woman named Jaime Caetano for possessing a stun gun she used to protect herself from an abusive ex. The state’s highest court said stun guns weren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they didn’t exist at the founding. The Supreme Court vacated that ruling unanimously and held that the Second Amendment covers bearable arms that weren’t in existence in 1791. That’s the legal foundation for protecting modern firearms technology from state bans.

Those cases are what stands between your rights and the gun control agenda Harris was advertising. You don’t get them with a packed court. You get the opposite.

She’s not hiding what she wants to do with guns

The mainstream press will soft-pedal this, but Harris’s record on firearms isn’t moderate.

In 2019, at a gun control forum in Las Vegas, she said on the record: “I support a mandatory gun buyback program.” That’s confiscation. She walked it back during the 2024 race because her campaign understood it was a liability. But she never said why she changed her mind. She just stopped saying it out loud.

She also co-sponsored the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 as a senator, which would have banned the sale, manufacture, transfer, and importation of semiautomatic rifles and pistols that accept detachable magazines. The current version of that legislation in the 119th Congress, H.R. 3115 and S. 1531, is stalled in committee while Republicans control Washington. Those bills don’t go away. They get reintroduced every session.

Put it together: someone who supported mandatory buybacks and assault weapons bans is now floating a plan to add enough justices to reverse Heller, Bruen, and Caetano. She’s not being subtle. She told you in plain language. She just doesn’t think you’re paying attention.

The court-packing plan would actually work

People hear “court packing” and picture some dramatic constitutional crisis that never materializes. But it doesn’t have to be dramatic to be devastating. FDR’s court-packing threat in 1937 never required a single new appointment. The credibility of the threat alone was enough to shift votes on the existing court. That’s on the record.

With a packed court of thirteen justices and five new progressive appointments, reversing Heller doesn’t require an explicit ruling. It just requires accepting the right cases with the right framing. Lower courts that are already hostile to Bruen get encouraged instead of corrected. Circuit splits get resolved in the wrong direction. The historical test Bruen established gets narrowed until it’s unenforceable.

Democrats in Congress have introduced the Judiciary Act multiple times. It died in 2021 because they couldn’t get the votes even with a Senate majority, and it was reintroduced in the 119th Congress. The only thing stopping it right now is the Republican majority. That changes, and you’re one legislative session away from a fundamentally different court.

Harris said it herself: “if we win the Senate, which we should and we will.” She’s not speculating. She’s planning.

The Virginia thing is not a coincidence

She brought up Virginia specifically, noting that Democrats were willing to do “whatever is necessary to advance gerrymandered maps.” That wasn’t a random example. Democrats in Virginia this year passed a sweeping gun package under Spanberger that included an assault weapons ban and a magazine restriction. Then, when the state Supreme Court ruled against their redistricting maps, the Democratic-controlled legislature moved to remove the entire court by adjusting judicial term age limits overnight.

That’s the template. Get power, pass the agenda, remove any court that pushes back. She cited Virginia because it’s proof of concept, not hypothetical.

Why this matters right now

We’re actually in a decent position. The Callais ruling came down last month. Bruen is the law. The ATF is undergoing real reform. There are wins on the board.

But the people who want to reverse all of it aren’t hiding. They’re saying it on livestreams. Harris isn’t in office but she’s positioning for 2028, and the plan she described (court expansion, new statehood, working around the Electoral College) is what she executes if she gets back in.

She was a few million votes away last time. She just told you what she does with those votes if they break differently.

Take every Senate race seriously. Take state legislative seats seriously. The gap between Heller being the law and Heller being a dead letter under a hostile twelve-justice court is narrower than most people think. She told you the plan out loud. Take her at her word.