It's been nearly three weeks since Joe Biden dropped out as the Democratic presidential candidate, and almost that long since Kamala Harris was anointed as his replacement, and we have yet to see her conduct a press conference or sit down for a one-on-one interview with even the friendliest media outlet. 

During that same time period, however, the Harris campaign has touted several shifts in her positions that have supposedly taken place since her inept campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2020 flamed out before the Iowa caucuses, including her flip-flop on mandatory "buybacks" of so-called assault weapons. 

Back in 2019 and early 2020, that was a centerpiece of Harris's campaign. Now, staffers say that she no longer supports a "buyback", though she's still talking up a ban on the campaign trail. Politifact even covered her changing views, declaring that it's "mostly false" to say that Harris "supports mandatory gun confiscation." 

Trump said that Harris "supports mandatory gun confiscation." 

While running in the 2019 presidential primary, Harris said, "I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. This would not cover all guns; handguns, for example, are the most popular.

Trump used the present tense when he said that Harris "supports mandatory gun confiscation." The Harris campaign told The New York Times that she supports banning assault weapons but not a requirement to sell them to the federal government. We could find no examples that she currently supports mandatory gun confiscation. 

The claim contains an element of truth about her past position on assault weapons, but it leaves a misleading impression about her platform in 2024. We rate this statement Mostly False.

To its credit, Politifact did provide a wealth of five-year-old quotes from Harris talking up her desire for a mandatory "buyback", which she called a "good idea" at the time. But neither the New York Times or Politifact explored why Harris has supposedly had a change of heart. We're just supposed to take it for a given that she no longer supports the compensated confiscation of millions of lawfully owned firearms. 

Thanks to her unwillingness to face questions from the media, Harris has been able to avoid having to explain her shift. She hasn't even had to define "assault weapon", though she's made calling for a ban a regular feature in her campaign speeches. Ordinarily, the D.C. media would be raging about the inaccessibility of a presidential candidate, but so far they've been happy to parrot her campaign talking points and talk up her "evolution" on the issue. 

 I think we all know the reason for Harris's abandonment of her previously held position: she's trying to appear more moderate than she really is. Democrats demanding a ban on so-called assault weapons is, sadly, nothing new or unusual. Calling on millions of lawful owners to turn over their semi-automatic rifles to the government in exchange for some cash, on the other hand, isn't even something that the major gun control groups have been publicly pushing for. 

But Harris still owes voters an explanation about why a mandatory "buyback" was a good idea (in her mind, anyway) five years ago, but a bad idea now. Harris says AR-15s and other semi-automatic long guns are "weapons of war" that don't belong "on the streets". If she truly believes that, then why isn't she sticking to her "buyback" demands? I suspect political expediency is the answer, but she can't admit that in a public setting. 

The simple question of "why did you change your mind" is a legitimate one to ask, and if the reporters following the Harris/Walz campaign can't ask her directly they can always pose that query in their reporting. The fact that no mainstream media outlet has been willing to do so is a problem in itself, and an indication that the national press is at least as invested in covering up for Harris as it is in covering her candidacy.