This should be an interesting one - the ‘popular’ answer on this is that of course the dyed-red republican was much more pro-gun than the Kenyan gun-grabber. But in thinking back on both presidencies, I don’t see a lot of practical difference, and Obama actually comes out ahead.
On the “Assault Weapons” topic, Bush said that he opposed the idea, but if a bill was passed by congress he’d sign it. Obama made some speeches calling for “Assault Weapon” bans, but didn’t do anything else. I’d call them equal on that point; both would be happy to sign a bill from Congress, but neither one was actually doing anything concrete. Bush and Obama both restricted imports of various “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines”, I’m not aware of any big difference between the two there.
Bush said a lot in favor of concealed carry, but it was actually Obama that allowed concealed carry in National Parks. Bush prevented people from transporting firearms in checked baggage on Amtrack after 9/11, Obama reversed that. Also, while Obama didn’t push for gun rights while in office, Bush also didn’t push for Federal changes that I’m aware of in spite of several years with a republican congress at his beck and call.
So, are there Federal gun control items that happened in 2000-2016 that I’m missing, or was Obama actually a slightly more pro-gun president in practice than Bush? I’m perfectly aware that Obama spoke more in favor of gun control than Bush, but I’m not really concerned with speeches, just actions.
I think it may be more accurate to state the Republican Congress stood in the way.
A very last minute hidden amendment to the Credit Card Act by Senator Coburn ended the gun prohibition. Prohibiting the amendment would have meant vetoing the entire bill. It’s a poison pill tactic politicians use.
The Amtrak firearms policy is practically identical to same requirements for transporting firearms aboard aircraft. You cannot carry a firearm in the passenger compartment of either. However, in the case of train transportation, a firearms owner is responsible for meeting all state and local firearms requirements for all jurisdictions the train will travel through. Airline passengers don’t need to worry about state and local laws as they fly over them.
The last major anti-gun legislation was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 which required the background checks and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 which expired in 2004 which banned the semiautomatic assault weapons. Both of these were signed by President Clinton. Neither Bush or Obama was active in major gun legislation.
Bush was by far better. He signed the PLCAA in 2005. He said he’d sign an AWB, but I think that was lip service (no evidence). The things that passed under Obama were in spite of him, riders or attachments to other must pass bills.
Bush also appointed Roberts and Alito. Both are far better for gun rights than Sotomayer or Kagan.
On one hand, Bush was probably legally better than Obama for reasons mentioned upthread.
But… for your average recreational shooter, there have been periodic and prolonged ammunition shortages through Obama’s first and second terms, primarily caused by panic buying driven by fear of gun and ammo regulation. It was pretty stupid, as there was actually no legislation of the sort. Prices doubled and then some at some points.
So I’d call that a net negative for shooters under Obama, although none of it was actually his doing, other than by existing and being elected.
Far more guns have been sold to private citizens. One ventures to guess that weapon purchases by the military were higher under Bush. And I’d venture to guess that military purchases are probably larger than civilian (though I may be wrong).
I’d guess you are wrong but can’t find a good cite for specific new firearm sales.
There’s currently around 2.1 million in the US military (AC and RC). 2015 was a record year for background checks - 23.1 million were conducted by the FBI.
That’s not necessarily sales. Now not every check necessarily ends up in a sale. Not every sale that requires a check involves a new weapon versus a used one. It’s only one check even if you are buying multiple weapons at the same time. It’s more than ten civilian checks per Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine in a single year though.
Right. It must be racism. Not the fact that Obama is a Democrat and continually talked of banning guns. Or that his administration kept pushing on ways to increase the sphere of prohibited persons. Hard to imagine, but it’s possible to be against the policies of the Obama administration without being racist.
There’s been lots of legislation (bills), just none that were able to get through the House and Senate for Obama to sign.
Also, the ATF’s M855 almost-ban, while not necessarily legislation, would certainly have affected the supply of 5.56 ammo throughout the country, so I don’t think it was “pretty stupid” for people to stock up before the proposed rule (which was ultimately abandoned after a firestorm of criticism) had a chance to become law.
There’s no question in my mind that Bush was a better president for gun rights than Obama, if nothing else because of his SCOTUS nominees.
The last Democratic president actually banned some guns, but there was nowhere near the level of hysteria or increased gun purchases during Clinton’s term.
Sure, you can be against policies without being racist, but what’s your explanation for the difference in response to two presidents, both Democrats, one who was white and banned guns and one who was black and didn’t?
You’ll have to be more specific. What difference in response are you talking about? If you’re talking about the 1994 AWB, well, you have a Republican controlled congress as a result.
True, investors in the stocks of gun and ammo manufacturers, or the owners of privately held ones, have been huge winners under Obama compared to previously wrt guns.
It’s phony ‘debunking’ though to say Obama is a gun friendly president, not fair to him really. He clearly states he wants a serious increase in federal level gun control for reasons he thinks are good, and in line with ‘common sense’ as he sees it.
The reality is basically no change, but it’s a contrast from Clinton admin where a Democratic president himself visibly retreated from talking about federal gun control after it (assault gun ban) helped cause Congressional losses for his party, or Bush who was outspoken against it all along. Obama has been for it all along and still frequently talks about it, though didn’t prioritize it as highly as things he felt to be more important in 2009-11 when the Democrats controlled Congress and so lost his chance to seriously advance federal gun control legislatively.
Simple. It started with Waco, and Ruby Ridge. In '94 the internet and easy mass communication didn’t exist. The AW Ban was passed because the pro gun folks were not organized much beyond the local levels, if that. Once they saw what could happen, guns being banned simply based upon the way that they looked, it lit a fire that is still burning today. The whole pre ban / post ban fiasco from 94-04 showed just how stupid the anti gun forces could be. The era of compromise ended then and there.
Obama could have been purple and the results would have been the same. Wait until Hillary speaks again about Australian solutions to gun control, or changing any laws in place to be more strict after she is elected. The pro gun side will roar, and I expect her supporters will explain that folks are only in a tizzy because she is a woman. She will only be attempting to pass “reasonable” controls so anyone who disagrees is just a woman hating Trump supporter, just like anyone who disagrees with the current POTUS is a racist.