“We see him as the most anti-gun president in modern times.” That’s the verdict on President Obama by NRA President David Keene. As furious as I am at Obama’s ATF for its illegal gun running, as much as I despair at his executive order creating an illegal long gun registry, I hardly think Mr. Obama is modern times’ most anti-gun Commander-in-Chief. Lest we forget . . .

President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, creating the “assault weapons ban” (AWB).

Clinton also signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which violates the 10th Amendment by compelling local and state officials to conduct criminal background checks for a lawful activity (as the NRA argued in the Supreme Court).

But before that . . .

President Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. While it attempted to limit the ATF’s power—a department that President Reagan elevated to Agency status—the Act contained the [fraudulently enacted] Hughes Amendment, outlawing the sale of automatic weapons not registered as of May 19, 1986.

As Governor of  California (does that count?), Reagan signed the Mulford Act prohibiting concealed and open carry of loaded weapons in any public place and requiring a 15-day waiting period for aspiring gun buyers.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act taxing the bejesus out of (and regulating) the sale of automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns and silencers (now called suppressors).

Obama doesn’t cut it with this crowd.

So it’s a toss-up: an AWB that expired and [more] federal intrusion into our gun purchases (Clinton), or taking full-autos off the table (drat), empowering the gun rights antithetical ATF (e.g., Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious) and disarming millions of Californians (Reagan)?

I vote Reagan. You?

74 Responses to Obama “Most Anti-Gun President in Modern Times” Or Not.

  1. Reagan had a dog in the fight which warped his mind on guns. Namely he was shot by one! Nothing to make you a tad anti than being almost killed by one. He had a lot of pressure after that as it was very P.C. at the time after the most famous person in the world, John Lennon was gunned down.

    I think if he had 20/20 hindsight. He would not have been so quick to sign those into law.

      • Quite. The Mulford Act was passed due to implicitly racist motivations — because Californians were up in arms about the Black Panthers (peacefully, believe it or not,) protesting while carrying firearms.

        Reagan also came out in full support of the Brady bill when it was under consideration by Congress.

        So yes: I have to vote Reagan. Though WJC is a close second.

        • You guys are missing the point. It’s not about what he’s done (although it bears pointing out that BHO put two of the four justices on the supreme court who sided with the minority on the question of the 2nd Amendment protecting an individual right–which clinches my vote hands down).

          It’s about what he wants to do… What he will do if let loose on a Constitution-trampling, capitalism-smashing (firearms-abolishing) lame duck spree.

        • You mean the Black Panthers who were supplied arms and encouraged to carry them by an FBI informant?

          Sort of a “false flag” operation.

        • without a doubt gun control has a lot to do with racism. gun controllers are racist whether they like to think of it that way or not. racsist and or elitest pretty much covers it.

    • nah, just an elitist attitude that you can disarm the serfs as long as you have armed secret service flocking around you

  2. Bit of a correction, The National Firearms Act did NOT outlaw automatics, SBRs, SBS’s and silencers. What it did was to regulate and heavily tax their transference in an effort to curb their usage. They’re still perfectly legal under federal law as long as you follow the ATF’s procedures to get one. Also FOPA did not outlaw automatics either, it just limited the transference of automatics manufactured after 1986 to LEOs and FFL’s with the appropriate SOT.

    Not defending either legislation, just pointing out details.

  3. Reagan was anti-crime and anti-Black panther, and like a lot of anti-crime politicans, he focused on the instruments that the criminals were using and not the criminals themselves. Likewise Roosevelt, who was trying to keep the instruments from the hands of Depression-era gangsters by creating a Federal charge that would allow lawmen to cross state lines. I wouldn’t call either one anti-gun. I’d call Reagan misguided and Roosevelt clever.

    Clinton’s AWB was different. It had nothing to do with crime as far as I can tell. It only related to power and control. Coming from Arkansas as he did, I’m not even sure that Clinton was ever anti-gun. I do feel that as a centrist (which he was prior to taking the White House), he had to throw some significant bonage to the left wing of his party. Hillarycare and the AWB were two such bones.

    As far as Barry-O is concerned, he always was an anti-gun pol in Chicago– is that redundant? — and I can’t see what’s changed. He spent all his first term political capital on Obamacare. If he’s re-elected, he’ll have “more flexibility” to deal with us in his own sweet way. Fortunately, he won’t have the House to do his bidding.

    • “If he’s re-elected, he’ll have “more flexibility” to deal with us in his own sweet way.”

      Exactly. To quote J. P. Donleavy: “Only for the moment are we saying nothing.”

      • That’s right. If Obama is re-elected, he’ll consider his re-election as “a mandate from the people”.

        That’s when the trouble begins…Truman with the Korean “police action”, Johnson with the Vietnam War, Nixon with Vietnam, and Clinton with the AWB.

        Although, to be sure, Truman and Johnson weren’t “re-elected”, since they succeeded to the office via their predecessors’ deaths.

    • You’re forgetting that A) those gangsters only were causing trouble because of prohibition and B) the NFA was signed a year after the end of prohibition and the end of the crime spree. Also, the $200 fee, while a minor inconvenience now, was equivalent to over $3,000 back in 1934 – the entire purpose was to outlaw them by making them too expensive for non-elites to purchase.

  4. Really. It’s all about soft control with Obama. Lots of little incentives to coerce you. Mental children (albeit heavily armed ones) are still malleable. His MSM support is deadlier than any iron we possess. Political power grows from the end of television speaker.

    So for the umpteenth time, Obama isn’t 2nd Amendment enemy number one. He’s too busy shackling minds to start shackling hands. The half-blood prince is smarter than many give him credit for.

  5. gotta say it again. when it comes down to gun rights do you prefer a dem controlled d.c. or a gop controlled d.c. who’s going to appoint our next s.c. justices. who give voice to schumer, feinstein, pelosi etc.

  6. Careful Robert,

    You are posting something that could cause some folks to challenge their Doublethink regarding ol’ Ronnie. There could be some steam rolling out of some ears as people try to square reality with Party-approved thought.

    You are close to committing Thoughtcrime. Doubleplusungood.

    Obama has been better to gun owners than folks are willing to give him credit for and far better than we had any right to expect…given his past stances. Granted I think this is due to his instincts for political self-preservation, but nonetheless it is true.

    Really the only black marks on his record are the LG Registry on the border and the Eric Holder JDpt. The former is clearly political theater designed to show that they are “doing something” to combat gun smuggling, the latter is the natural butt cover that happens when you put Sid the Sloth in charge of the Justice Dept.

    Sid: http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/Sid-ice-age-cang-19251577-500-500.jpg

    Holder: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Eric_Holder_official_portrait.jpg/220px-Eric_Holder_official_portrait.jpg

    Separated at birth?

    • That’s all true but we should still give all our money to the NRA just to be sure, right?

      They doth protest so loud!

    • Really the only black marks on his record are the LG Registry on the border and the Eric Holder JDpt.

      And appointing anti-Constitution judges. And his many anti-gun remarks as a Senator and his early presidency. Oh, and how he said a few years ago that we need to have a permanent scary looking weapons ban.

      • Point taken. I had forgotten about SCOTUS appointments. I was thinking of Legislation signed, policies trumpeted etc.

  7. Intent matters. If you don’t think Obama would shove through a litany of firearms regulation were it not political suicide to do so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    • Isn’t that the point–it would be political suicide for any candidate to do so. And Obama does not ahve a majority in both houses, so the potential for any new restrictions is essentially nil. The only place that gun rights are an issue is in state legislatures (yesterday, for example, the Cailifornia Legislature passed and sent to the Governor a bill to outlaw the open carrying of unloaded shotguns and rifles in urban environs, adding to its prior ban of unloaded open carry of handguns, which added to the Ronnie ban of loaded weapons in public) and in the courts. Heller and McDonald are now the law of hte land, and no change in the makeup of the SCOTUS will change that. In this election, guns are a nonissue.

      • Isn’t that the point–it would be political suicide for any candidate to do so.

        Mark N., that’s what most people said about Obamacare. And for the Blue Dog Democrats, it actually was political suicide — most of them were kicked out of office for voting “aye.” But Obamacare still passed, along with the huge increase in taxes that will pay for it.

    • If we put it all into perspective of the two gentlemen currently vying for being president during the next four years both have a history of being anti 2nd amendment and would gladly grab all the guns they could if the political climate in general were so inclined.

    • “Intentmatters.”

      Agreed. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a very conservative independent who generally votes Republican because…the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In a perfect world we’d elect Ron Paul, but since he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance, I’ll be voting Romney.

      Some can claim that Romney has put through anti-gun legislation in the past, and this is true. However, Romney (I believe) did it because that’s what his constituency wanted. Some say he hasn’t been consistent on issues, but I think he just tries to listen to what his voters want. Obviously he’s not perfect, and based on his gun record alone I probably wouldn’t vote for him, but based on his recent stance after the Batman shooting, I wouldn’t worry about him messing with guns.

      • Romney did appear at the NRA convention in St. Louis, this year and spoke of protecting the Second Amendment.

        Obama was MIA.

  8. What about Obama’s supreme court appointees? In what way are they pro gun rights? If you support democrats, you support gun control, because their people end up in every nook and cranny of government. Just because the haven’t done anything lately doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like to, or won’t.

    I don’t understand the outstanding reporting done by this sight on Fast and Furious, and then this weak tea about Obama not being so bad. So he hasn’t done anything overt — he’s been busy socializing medicine. Now he’s busy getting reelected. Give him time — if you dare.

    Progressives are pro government and anti freedom. If you support a moderate progressive, they will support the more radical ones. There is no such thing as a pro gun progressive, when giving them power nets you people like Schumer, Sotomayor, Holder, etc.

    • Yeah yeah yeah, ALL progressives are anti-gun. ALL progressives want to ban guns. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times on pretty much every gun blog out there I’ve visited. But it just ain’t so. You can’t overgeneralize, just as an article by a college professor –an avowed liberal and academic–published HERE today so decidedly establishes. I know conservatives that are antigun and liberals that are very pro-gun.

      Did you know that Scalia took Kagan skeet shooting, and she LIKED it and wants to go bird hunting with him too? Do you understand that the Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to overrule prior precedent under any circumstances? And do you realize that the next retiree from the bench will most likely be one of its members appointed by a Democrat? The mix on the Court ain’t gonna change unless one of the conservative members kicks the busket.

      • There are three likely changes in SCOTUS in the near future. Ginsburg is 82. Scalia is 76, so I expect he could die or retire in the next term. Kennedy is also 76 and was the swing vote on Heller.

        Kagan liking skeet shooting means absolutely nothing vis a vis her backing an “assault weapons ban” or a ban on handguns, or a tax on ammunition, banning online ammo purchases, etc. The double barrelled shotgun will be the last firearm ever mentioned in any legislation.

        • Scalia, the last time I saw him interviewed, has no intention of retiring. 76 is still young by SCOTUS standards. Most of these guys hold on until they are at death’s door. And that still does not address the role of stare decisis, which will inevitably play a big role in any future case (some of which look like they will be ready for Supreme Court review in 2013 or 2014.) Remember that the entire court agreed in Heller that the 2A secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to a group right. And I think that the court has implicitly recognized (despite several circuit court decisions narrowly construing Heller and ignoring its dicta) that the right to bear arms exists, necessarily, outside the home. The problem right now is that the Supremes have not taken a case for carry outside the home, and the Circuit Courts are falling all over themselves to be LAST to decide one of these cases. I believe that these justices know the flood gates have opened, but they don’t want to be the one pulling the finger out of the dike. And the Supremes won’t address it until the Circuits do.
          The most likely change on the court in the near term is that Ginsberg will retire if Obama is re-elected. And that will do noting except perhaps delay the consideration of the next 2A case while the Senate does everything it can to block any appointment to the Court no matter how qualified.

    • The Supreme Court is, really, the only compelling argument to vote for Romney. We know what kind of justices Obama will appoint: justices along the lines of Steven Breyer, who will twist and turn to justify expansions of government power.

      We don’t know what kind of people Romney will appoint — but it’s probably worth the risk.

      Otherwise, I kind of think the two are a wash.

  9. How can anyone beleive a single word that Mittler says? Lest we not forget exactly what his stance was as mayor of Massachussetts and the laws that were enacted there.

      • That would be Governor. But I agree. Mitt has the positions his handlers tell him to take. And states them as vaguely as possible. That way he can change his mind later.

        • And Mitts background is Republican, and Paul Ryan is his VP. Remember, the guy in full camo with the shotgun? I’m really astonished why people don’t see where the pro-2A vote is.

  10. The only reason Obama hasn’t doen much worse then any of those listed items is because f the fallout from those exact items. He can’t risk being slammed in a first term from the fallout that those presidents took from those events. If we are screwed and he gets a second term, look for actions FAR beyond anything done prior.

    • Since ants can lift ten times their own weight, I guess that makes him a superhero, right? Atom Ant returns!

  11. I did not renew my NRA membership because of the crap they were spewing about Obama. It’s not facts that make their leaders cry wolf, so what is their real issue?

    As far as politics–my father-in-law is as Republican as they get and anti-gun. He gave my wife a long lecture because I dared to bring a handgun into the house. Gun owners should seek to educate, not draw arbitrary lines because the politicians and talking heads tell us we should. I guess I’m spoiled in PA, most of our Dems (at least outside of Philly) are pro-gun.

  12. Obama is not the most anti-gun president ever, but I sure wouldn’t put anything past him in a second term. He’s already shown a total willingness to bypass Congress, checks and balances, the wishes of the people, and the rule of law to push his agenda. Not to mention potential SCOTUS picks.

    • I agree with Silver (I love it when I can say that).

      I’m still hopeful that in the second term Obama will truly become the anti-gun president we all know he’s capable of becoming.

      • That’s funny…because I’m still hopeful that you’ll accidentally fall off a cliff. I know that’s not as likely as Obama going after guns, but just wishful thinking.

  13. Reagan would be my choice for least gun-friendly. I’m also still vexed at him for his tepid response to the terrorist bombing of the USMC Beirut barracks in which 241 marines were killed in 1983. Given his track record, I actually think O’Bama would have been more aggressively responsive.

    I think it possible that BHO could grow into a gun guy–we’ve all seen how he lights up talking about drone strikes, and one way to think about drones are as snipers in the skies. Could a gun range at Camp David be next?

  14. Obama or Romney would push through what was politically expedient. If the Congress gets it that far then you will see either of their signatures on it. Romney has a much worse track record of action. Luckily, the party he represents will not let it get that far.

  15. I trust Obama on guns much more than I trust Romney. Romney can’t decide what color the sky is; I don’t think I’m going to trust him to not turn against gun owners if he becomes president.

  16. Obama’s first term is just the warm up.He’s counting on another term in which he will establish his legacy.He’ll do whatever he thinks will fit into his concept of a lasting presidential legacy. The more besieged(distracted) he is the better off we are.

    • He’s already established his presidential legacy. What’s he going to do? Revive Osama Bin Laden and kill him again?

  17. Robert I appreciate your writing particularly because you hold nothing sacred. That you are not afraid that the Cult of Reagan wont hunt you down and burn you at the stake by pointing out the facts of his policies is commendable. You have weapons and they would have pitchforks, no contest.

  18. Obama is not the most anti-gun president ever, but do you really want to give him the opportunity to become so?

  19. Obama will sign he UN treaty after the lection effectively banning the 2nd Amendment. Most people realize that Obama bar none is the extremeist here.

    That certain kind of person would be anyone with an I.Q. above room
    temperature who had been paying the slightest bit of attention, because
    Obamas actions as a legislator spoke volumes about his feelings on the gun
    issue. Senator Obamas statements on the campaign trail werent any more
    reassuring. For example:
    Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected
    homeowners from weapons charges if they used an illegal gun in self-defense.
    In a primary debate in 2008, Obama the candidate stated that the second
    amendment confers an individual right, BUT (theres always but where the
    second amendment is concerned) the fact that it is an individual right does
    not mean that the state or local government cant constrain the exercise of
    that right. In addition, for a supposed constitutional scholar to state that
    the Bill of Rights confers rights, rather than protects pre-existing rights
    is also worrisome.
    When running for the Illinois senate in 1996, Obama most assuredly did fill
    out a questionnaire (despite his later claims that a staffer did it) in
    which he unequivocally supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and
    possession of handguns, a ban on the possession of assault weapons and
    waiting periods before purchasing a firearm.
    Need I mention the whole bitter clingers episode?
    Although he claimed to respect the second amendment, he also said that the
    D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was
    constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing
    wrong with a community establishing their own reasonable, thoughtful gun
    control measure[s] while still respecting the second amendment. Did you
    catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure.
    In the Illinois legislature, he supported licensing and registering gun
    owners as a measure to keep unlawful guns off the street. This purported
    constitutional scholar was apparently unaware that the supreme court has
    ruled that criminals dont need to register (and cant be punished for failing
    to register) their guns because it would be a violation of their right
    against self-incrimination.
    In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month
    and in 2003 he voted in favor of HB 2579 which had the same one gun per
    month provision.
    According to a Chicago Defender article in December of 1999, Obama is
    proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from
    his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not
    securely stored in that home.
    At an NAACP forum in 2007 Obama stated Weve got to make sure that
    unscrupulous gun dealers arent loading up vans and dumping guns in our
    communities, because we know theyre not made in our communities. What?!? Is
    that what he really thinks? That federally licensed gun dealers are loading
    up vehicles and selling guns out of the back in inner cities?
    In the Illinois senate he supported a confiscatory assault weapons ban
    which would have included semi-auto shotguns and even some pump, double and
    single barrel shotguns.
    As a Presidential candidate he called for passage of H.R. 6257, deceptively
    titled Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 which would have
    explicitly banned far more weapons than the Clinton AWB.
    As a Senator, Obama voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun
    manufacturers and voted in favor of an amendment to that bill which would
    have banned most rifle ammunition, under the guise of banning armor-piercing
    ammunition.
    As a Senator Obama did not sign the amicus brief supporting the individual
    rights view in Heller v. DC.
    Obama voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which
    would have eliminated most gun stores in America.
    He supported legislation to close the gun show loophole which would have
    imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for
    sale privately.
    As a Senator, Obama stated he supported a federal ban on concealed carry
    laws and as a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I
    am not in favor of concealed weapons, Obama said. I think that creates a
    potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during)
    altercations.

  20. In terms of what he believes and would like to do on the issue, I would say he most certainly is. Remember he was a board member with the Joyce foundation for eight years. The same Joyce foundation that throws money hand over fist at any and every gun control organization. Organizations that have extreme goals about registration, gun bans, et cetera. Rich covered his past record as a legislator, so I don’t need to repeat that part of his history, but it indicates what his true feelings and intent probably are.
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure why he hasn’t signed gun control bills in to law.The only reason he hasn’t done more is because the political climate is pro gun right now. Any serious attempt at pushing gun control above the radar could cause a backlash that could tip the balance in the election.
    Given his history, I think it reasonable to assume that if he could have it his way, the gun laws through the whole country would probably be like D.C. or Chicago. Maybe a lot worse. Even throwing out worse case scenarios as being unlikely( and they are) there is still the Supreme court to consider. Not having to answer to the public in another election campaign is something else that can’t be brushed under the rug as being a trivial concern.

  21. Obama may be the most anti-gun president… but hasn’t yet mounted a public campaign. We’ll only know his full intentions on the subject if he gets a second term.

    Given his actions to date, throwing away over $2600 for every person in America at the rich gamblers and banksters, expanding the costly wars overseas, lining up an hugely expensive socialized medicine program, he’s gone a long ways towards destroying America. It would not surprise me if he took the next step, destabilizing America enough to bring on civil war.

    But of course, he’ll want your guns before that happens.

    Not that Romney will be any better… or any different for that matter.

    American voters missed the boat when they failed to nominate Ron Paul. Gary Johnson may be the last opportunity to undo the Obama damage.

  22. @Rich:

    Obama won’t sign any U.N. treaty that will attempt to gut our Second Amendment. No treaty can be signed by him, without first being ratified by the U.S. Senate, as per the U.S. Constitution.

    That’s why the Founding Fathers put the “advise and consent” wording in the Constitution. They were students of history and knew of the abuses and injuries that could result from kings arbitrarily entering into treaties, without any say-so from their subjects.

    In fact, 51 U.S. senators signed and sent a letter to Obama saying that any treaty promulgated by the U.N. that would infringe on our Second Amendment rights, was DOA. Since it taks 67 Senate votes to ratify any treaty, it doesn’t have a prayer.

    @ Dave H and BambiB, you are right Dave, and Bambi, we shall see.

  23. It is problematic the Obama Administration/Justice Department may next attempt to invoke restrictions (written like illegal drug civil forfeiture laws) on gun owners and their right to possess ammunition to greatly expand Civil Asset Forfeiture of not just guns and ammunition linked to (non-drug crimes) in order to forfeit other types of property linked to guns. For example, government civil forfeiture of any vehicle, home other property real or personal containing any gun alleged possessed illegally. Most Americans can’t afford legal costs to fight government civil asset forfeiture.

    In 1994 the Justice Department under Janet Reno attempted to get legislation passed that would have allowed government summary judge denying gun owners the right to due process to prove they legally owned or possessed their confiscated guns. That gun legislation included the words “premises containing illegal weapons” written like illegal drug forfeiture laws. Gun owners expressed concern the words “premises containing illegal weapons” opened the door for DOJ and police to civilly forfeit gun owners’ homes if the (premises) contained illegal guns. Had the 1994 gun legislation passed—millions of Americans would have been afraid to keep guns in their home. The Nazi Government invoked similar gun/property asset forfeiture laws so German Citizens could not defend themselves against the Reich tyrannical government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *