History of National Pro Gun Legislation Signed by Presidents

bearcreek

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
3,946
Location
N Idaho
My family and I were having a discussion the other day and the subject of pro gun legislation and Presidents who had signed it came up. The only "pro gun" bill I could think of that didn't also include something "anti gun" in it, that I could think of were the two signed by Obama. One allowed carry in National Parks. The other allowed guns in checked bags on Amtrak trains.

Is Obama really the only president to have signed such legislation, or am I forgetting something? Meaning, have there been any US Presidents, besides Obama, who have signed pro gun legislation that didn't also include something anti gun (FOPA, for example)?
 
The classic "pro-gun" legislation was the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), that was signed by Reagan in 1986. The NRA was heavily invested in getting that passed. But, in the final version, it included the Hughes Amendment, which banned new machine guns. Therefore, a net loss, IMO.

"Antigun" Obama's actual actions turned out to be pro-gun. Plus, his antigun rhetoric caused panics that spurred gun sales. Some have called him the "gun salesman of the century."

On the other hand, "pro-gun" Reagan's and Trump's actual actions were, on a net basis, antigun. (Examples are FOPA, and Trump's bump stock ban.) But the NRA was also complicit in these things.
 
Because the Gun Bug didn't infect me until well into middle age, which President's actions (or ATF initiative, allowed by a President) required receivers of imported select-fire rifles to be Cut in Half?

It might have been Bush Sr.

This topic might be on thin ice, due to its existence. Partly because THR is the only online source for such discussions.... ;)
 
The classic "pro-gun" legislation was the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), that was signed by Reagan in 1986. The NRA was heavily invested in getting that passed. But, in the final version, it included the Hughes Amendment, which banned new machine guns. Therefore, a net loss, IMO.

"Antigun" Obama's actual actions turned out to be pro-gun. Plus, his antigun rhetoric caused panics that spurred gun sales. Some have called him the "gun salesman of the century."

On the other hand, "pro-gun" Reagan's and Trump's actual actions were, on a net basis, antigun. (Examples are FOPA, and Trump's bump stock ban.) But the NRA was also complicit in these things.
Right. Every "pro" gun bill that I know of, other than the two that Obama signed, have also included something anti gun. I just find it hard to believe that Obama is the only president, of any party, to sign any completely pro gun legislation since the 2A was written. One would think that there'd have to be at least one or two others, but maybe not?
 
required receivers of imported select-fire rifles to be Cut in Half?
From potentially fuzzy memory, that goes back to '69 or '70 or so, as an add-on to other Import Restrictions after GCA '68 invented the "sporting purposes" notion, and around the One and Only NFA Amnesty.

It's in the CFR (again, if memory serves correctly) which means it was entirely via BATFE (not needing any sort of POTUS signature nor approval). Imported Select-fire receivers are where we get the "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" rhetoric, which actually only applies to imports (not that said distinction much limits ATFTE enforcement policies).

Obama was up against solid Congressional support for those bills, politically, he had to sign them, as Congress would have overturned his Veto. Even so, both of those were flawed as delivered. Many National 'properties' were not included in the carry change--so Refuges, Conservation Areas, and places out of the Parks system were excluded from consideration. Even the NPs were allowed to post "sensitive areas" and you did not know until you saw the posting.
The AmTrak deal did not (really) last beyond 9/11, and you had to rely on FOPA in case the train rolled through a prohibited area (like NJ, MD, MA, CT, NYS, or the like), so the bill wound up being so milquetoast as to be meaningless.

FOPA was both fish and fowl (or foul, if you will). It was politically necessary to start the tide turning, and to show WRC that the new GOP Congress was to be reckoned with. It was a tad dumb in that it mostly just got rid of things that were being poorly administered anyway. The "travel between States" was the weakest water possible--but was still better than status quo ante. The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a "poison pill" to keep the GOP lawmakers from voting in favor, but they ignored it for the "larger win" such as it was. This was reflected in how it was rammed in, possibly 5 minutes past deadline, to endure the poison pill remained no matter what.

Now, I suppose a case can be made that Andrew Johnson signing the 14th Amendment in 1866 did as much for ensuring national gun rights as any other POTUS.

Now, TR might get a nod for signing the Dick Act, aka The Militia Act of 1903, which allowed the Militia for be both the 10 USC National Guard and the repealing of the Militia Acts of 1795, with their mandatory training requirement and the like. Which, it can be argued, better reflected James Madison's "Who are the Militia? They are the whole of the people."
 
Obama didn't sign the bill because it was pro-gun. The language allowing carry in National Parks was an amendment added to an unrelated bill that Obama wanted passed, he just wasn't willing to torpedo the whole thing to get rid of that one provision. Similar to the Hughes Amendment being added to the FOPA by Democrats at literally the last minute (supposedly by voice vote) and supporters of the bill not wanting to lose the entire bill over that single change.
 
Obama didn't sign the bill because it was pro-gun. The language allowing carry in National Parks was an amendment added to an unrelated bill that Obama wanted passed, he just wasn't willing to torpedo the whole thing to get rid of that one provision. Similar to the Hughes Amendment being added to the FOPA by Democrats at literally the last minute (supposedly by voice vote) and supporters of the bill not wanting to lose the entire bill over that single change.
Of course. I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that Obama is pro gun. That sort of makes it even sadder, in a way, that he seems to have been the only president to have signed legislation that was uncompromisingly pro 2A/pro gun since the 2A was written. Reagan was quite clearly opposed to civilian ownership of weapons that the media today likes to call "assault weapons", so his signing of FOPA, with the new machine gun ban included in it, wouldn't have been any real shock. LEOSA was mentioned, but that isn't a 2A issue, since it only effects government/former government employees.
 
Similar to the Hughes Amendment being added to the FOPA by Democrats at literally the last minute (supposedly by voice vote) and supporters of the bill not wanting to lose the entire bill over that single change.
Prior to FOPA, you could buy a long gun from an FFL dealer in a "contiguous" state. After FOPA, you can buy a long gun from an FFL dealer in any state. Big deal. Plus, some meaningless language was added about traveling through antigun states with a gun. The antigun states will still harass you.

To offset all that, the Hughes Amendment banned new machine guns, causing the prices of existing machine guns to go through the roof. That was definitely a step backward. Apparent progress (FOPA) but real backsliding (Hughes).

The NRA should have pulled its support for the bill when the Hughes Amendment was added. But they didn't, because their egos were on the line. They had invested too much political capital to get it passed. Reagan just went along with what the NRA wanted.
 
Of course. I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that Obama is pro gun. That sort of makes it even sadder, in a way, that he seems to have been the only president to have signed legislation that was uncompromisingly pro 2A/pro gun since the 2A was written.

Presiden Obama did say he enjoyed trapshooting at Camp David.

The link below is a photo of him doing so. Looks like the shotgun was ported.

 
Last edited:
The classic "pro-gun" legislation was the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), that was signed by Reagan in 1986. The NRA was heavily invested in getting that passed. But, in the final version, it included the Hughes Amendment, which banned new machine guns. Therefore, a net loss, IMO.
Oh please.
The Hughes Amendment was intended to be a poison pill. Net loss? Nah.

What FOPA fixed:
Safe Passage-Barring short stops for food and gasoline, persons not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms may transport them from state to state, provided the firearms are legal in both the state of departure and state of arrival.
Firearm Registry- forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners.
Contiguous State Restriction- removed for rifles and shotguns. Previously, you could only acquire rifles and shotgun in your state or those with contiguous borders.
Ammunition Sales- removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition.
FFL compliance inspections- can be done no more than once per year. Prior to FOPA, ATF could and did harass FFL's with multiple inspections per year.

If you don't understand the abuses by ATF and other law enforcement groups, then FOPA may seem like a net loss because you can't buy a post '86 machine gun. But take two minutes to think where you would buy it and how. Then think about a national firearm registry. Then think about having your ID recorded by the clerk every time you bought ammunition.

In 1986 machine guns were an infinitesimally small niche of the firearms market.
 
In 1986 machine guns were an infinitesimally small niche of the firearms market.
So it was OK for the NRA to throw the machine gun community under the bus? This sounded an awful lot like the "slice and dice" tactics of the antigunners.

In 1986, the "infinitesimally small niche" was growing.

As for the things that FOPA allegedly "fixed," none of them made the slightest difference to the average gun owner.
 
Last edited:
So it was OK for the NRA to throw the machine gun community under the bus? This sounded an awful lot like the "slice and dice" tactics of the antigunners.
The NRA didn't throw anyone under the bus. Congress did. Without passage of the Hughes Amendment FOPA would not have passed. That is clear. And the Republican party, the NRA and every gun dealer in America felt FOPA was needed ASAP. And in 1986 the Hughes Amendment wasn't seen as particularly onerous...and that why it passed with a voice vote. While there are audio recordings that seem to make it arguable that there was significant dissent, no one asked for a roll call vote.

In 1986, the "infinitesimally small niche" was growing.
Said from the convenience of hindsight. In 1986 IT WASN'T GROWING. The explosive growth of NFA firearms didn't occur for another two decades and that was due to the the expense of the NFA tax no longer being prohibitive for the Average Joe.
Interest in any NFA firearm in 1986 was a thousand times less than it is now. The $200 NFA transfer tax in 1986 is equivalent to $560 today. How many guys on this forum would buy a silencer if the tax was $500? Not nearly as many. I know because even now there are a significant number holding off until the Hearing Protection Act gets passed.:rofl:

As for the things that FOPA allegedly "fixed," none of them made the slightest difference to the average gun owner.
If you have any memory of ATF prior to 1986 you would be embarrassed to post that.;)
ATF overreach is bad now and was horrendous prior to FOPA. I'm really shocked you think it didn't make the slightest difference to the average gun owner. Where on earth do you think your "average gun owner" buys his guns? Or buys his ammunition? Sure, he may be wholly ignorant of what FOPA fixed in 1986, but every gun owner enjoys those benefits every time they buy a gun or a box of ammunition.

Without FOPA we could very well have a national gun registry. That may make you happy, but I assure you it wouldn't excite very many others.
ATF compliance inspections drove many dealers out of business....you think that too is no big deal?

.
 
And in 1986 the Hughes Amendment wasn't seen as particularly onerous.
It certainly was, for those of us who were into machine guns at the time. The Hughes Amendment was the end of the world as we knew it. (I was an SOT dealer.)
If you have any memory of ATF prior to 1986 you would be embarrassed to post that.;)
ATF overreach is bad now and was horrendous prior to FOPA.
I never had any problems with ATF when I had my license. All my contacts with them were convivial. The dealers that had problems were the ones that were "pushing the envelope."
 
It certainly was, for those of us who were into machine guns at the time. The Hughes Amendment was the end of the world as we knew it. (I was an SOT dealer.)
And I'm sure you would agree, "those of us who were into machine guns" was a pretty small number of people.

I never had any problems with ATF when I had my license. All my contacts with them were convivial. The dealers that had problems were the ones that were "pushing the envelope."
Sure.
 
By design, the president is too far removed from lawmaking for the question to be valid. Examining the number of "pro-gun" bills which get introduced into congress each session might be a better place to start. And how many times (in theory at least) is the introduction of such bills politically feasible? --for example, the post '94 midterm elections.

The truth is, the opportunity for a president to sign (or more realistically veto) a bill which would be truly beneficial and significant to the 2A, is pretty rare.
 
The truth is, the opportunity for a president to sign (or more realistically veto) a bill which would be truly beneficial and significant to the 2A, is pretty rare.
So rare, that in over 200 years, only one (that we here can think of so far) has done it. Quite amazing really.
 
The explosive growth of NFA firearms didn't occur for another two decades and that was due to the the expense of the NFA tax no longer being prohibitive for the Average Joe.
Interest in any NFA firearm in 1986 was a thousand times less than it is now. The $200 NFA transfer tax in 1986 is equivalent to $560 today.

And these were $150...

A1473FAD-DDCD-4785-BD2B-D345FAC0EE4A.jpeg

Makes that tank of fuel these days, for the same price, seem like a waste of money...
 
Back
Top