Keep Your Eyes on Knife Control Rulings by Tracy Marisa

In late November, 2019, a terrorist who had used knives to murder a couple of Londoners, in broad daylight, on London Bridge, was subdued by a guy with—of all things—a narwhal tusk “liberated” from nearby Fishmongers Hall. Armed with guns, the police finished off the terrorist, but most of us would consider both the terrorist and the guy wielding the tusk to have been “armed” as well.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is not limited to guns: Back in the day, bows and bladed weapons of all sorts were considered “arms” as well as rifles, pistols, and so forth. In fact, the first forms of arms control in the U.S. were not aimed at guns but were aimed to control bayonets, swords, and other unpopular bladed weapons; because there was a long history of prohibiting such items in English common law, there was little initial resistance to such prohibitions. Folks in Merry Old England, were not in favor of people walking the streets with hatchets (but maybe not narwhal tusks).

Starting in the mid-19th century, states started expanding “arms control” by trying to ban knives of all sorts, with varying degrees of success. By the mid-20th century, fears fostered by bad movies (among other things) about juvenile delinquents armed to the teeth with switchblades led to draconian restrictions and sometimes complete bans on all sorts of knives at the state and federal levels.

But there has been pushback in recent years, and this is important to the 2^nd Amendment.  For example, in Colorado, their antiquated switchblade ban was repealed in 2017. Hawaii still has a ban on butterfly knives on the books.  However, there is a case pending, Teter v. Connors, in which an amicus brief filed by Mountain States Legal Foundation with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals argues that Hawaii’s ban violates the Second Amendment and is thus unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit, which covers the “Left Coast”, was overwhelmingly liberal until Trump started appointing justices.  It has been shifting recently toward upholding individuals’ natural, fundamental, and constitutionally protected rights. A win for knives in Teter would continue this monumental shift in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisprudence and would also reinforce the constitutional basis for the gun-rights movement.

So, a win in Teter wouldn’t just be a knife-rights victory, it would be a gun-rights victory as well. Keep your eye on this and other knife-rights cases.

Biden’s Democrat Platform on Guns by Tom Reynolds

In the presidential debate, Joe Biden said, “The party is me…Right now, I am the Democratic Party. I am the Democratic Party right now.”  Okay Joe, you own the Democrat platform.  Below is his platform as to gun control, taken directly from the Democrat platform document.   It is buried in a section called, “Healing the soul of America”.

Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence

Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence. Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years.

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

There is too much here to deal with in one email, but it deserves a few comments.

Of the 40,000 gun deaths that their platform notes, 24,000 are suicides, (which isn’t noted).  Most of those suicides will probably just find an alternate method to commit suicide.  Democrats would claim success by eliminating gun related suicides and ignore little change in the overall suicide rate.

Taken as a whole, these steps would eventually lead to no one legally owning a gun (except, of course, Democrat politicians, their friends and those protecting Democrat politicians).  In fact, gun violence by criminals would undoubtably increase since criminals don’t obey any of these laws and they would know they face disarmed citizens. (Remember Sean Connery’s famous line in the movie “The Untouchables” about bringing a knife to a gun fight.)  Biden completely ignores that these steps would eliminate legally owned guns from being used in self-defense.  Estimates on defensive gun use range from 50,000 to 2,500,000 per year, far outnumbering non suicide deaths.  

But, hey, what do facts mean to a guy that believes Antifa is only an idea?

What if the Referees Don’t Follow the Rules? by Tom Reynolds

The Supreme Court is often described as split between Republicans and Democrats or between Progressive and Conservatives. In reality it is between “Originalists” and those who believe in “Loose Construction”.  

The Originalists believe the Constitution means what it meant when it (and its amendments) were passed and can only be changed by further amending the Constitution.  The Loose Constructionists believe that the Constitution can evolve and adapt to what justices believe is needed, without it being amended.

Amy Coney Barrett is usually classified with the Originalists while left wing justices such as Ruth Bader-Ginsburg are typically seen as Loose Constructionists.  Barrett’s appointment is seen as tipping the balance on the Supreme Court to Originalists and putting an end to Loose Constructionist rulings as well as opening up the possibility of reversing some of the previous rulings of Loose Constructionist courts. 

The 2^nd Amendment is defended by Originalists and it is attacked by Loose Constructionists who want to supersede the Constitution, as written, with their own prejudices and biases.

Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, did an excellent job of simplifying this difference in a recent column.  He compared the Constitution to the rules of football, each of which say what is permissible and what is not.  Williams emphasized that, “a Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only; namely, that of a referee”.  Their job is, “to know the rules of the game and to ensure that those rules are evenly applied without bias…enforcing neutral rules”. 

Referees should be Originalists, according to Williams.

“Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it is like to be a perennial loser…? What would you think of a referee whose play calls were guided by empathy or pity?” 

We’d call them Loose Constructionists and boo them vehemently.

“Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against one team” but not the other?  “Would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule?” 

Williams ends with a deeply inciteful guideline for constitutions and laws:

“what our society needs—the kind of rules whereby you would be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge”. 

Wow!   That idea exactly parallels what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Our society should have rules that are evenly applied, known, and understood.    All sides must play by the same rules; we can compete hard against each other but always within the same rules.  If someone unfairly benefits by a rule, society can make a judgment and change that rule (or not), but until the rule is changed, justices must referee under the old rules. 

With Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court, the 2^nd Amendment should finally have a reliable majority in support of it, in the manner the Founding Fathers envisioned.  The old rules will apply.  Without this reliable majority, an evenly divided Supreme Court has been silent on the 2^nd Amendment since the “Heller” and “McDonald” decisions, for fear that unreliable John Roberts might side with the other side.  We should start to see 2^nd Amendment cases being taken up by the Supreme Court, much to the dismay of gun grabbers everywhere.

​America, Truly A Diamond! (Neil Diamond) by Tom Reynolds

The far left can’t say enough bad about the America we love, the America which, under our Constitution, has done more for more people than any country in the history of the world.  Forget our imperfections and ignore the rantings of the mob, it’s time to stand up and unapologetically celebrate America and all its done and all it represents.  America is a land of optimism and not regrets.  We’ve got a lot to be proud of and celebrate and that was captured in a Neil Diamond song from a few years ago.

Far
We've been traveling far
Without a home
But not without a star

Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream

On the boats and on the planes
They're coming to America

Never looking back again
They're coming to America

Home, to a new and a shiny place
Make our bed, and we'll say our grace
Freedom's light burning warm
Freedom's light burning warm

Everywhere around the world
They're coming to America

Every time that flag's unfurled
They're coming to America

Got a dream to take them there
They're coming to America

Got a dream they've come to share
They're coming to America

My country 'tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty

Of thee I sing​

Will SCOTUS Protect The 2nd Amendment? by Tom Reynolds

President Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant Supreme Court (SCOTUS) seat.  Apparently, there are enough Republican votes to ensure her approval by the Senate, unless something unexpected emerges.  That isn’t likely since she has been previously praised by both Republicans and Democrats – before being nominated for SCOTUS.  As the mother of seven children, two are whom are black and adopted from Haiti, there isn’t much room for charges of racism or the Kavanaugh style smears that the left specializes in.  (Although…President Trump is now routinely called a racist in spite of him receiving awards from black rights groups before he ran for President; there are pictures of him being awarded medals alongside Rosa Parks and being congratulated by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! So, anything is possible.)

Democrats attacked Amy Coney Barrett, (or A C B is she will soon be known) at a previous confirmation hearing, for being a Catholic.  However, reliably far-left SCOTUS Justice Sotomayer is also Catholic as are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.  But Barrett may still be pictured as a “Papist” danger to our country, by the Democrats.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment.  A C B is a constitutional originalist in the tradition of Justice Antonin Scalia.  A C B separates protections for civic rights (voting and jury duty) from individual rights (owning a gun) and believes the government must vigorously protect the gun ownership as an individual right instead of a group right (the militia).  This brings her in line with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions and sends the left into a panic.  She would bring SCOTUS to 5-3-1 in favor of the 2nd Amendment (or 6-3 if reliably unreliable John Roberts returned to his Conservative roots).

So, all those gun owners who hate politics and rarely if ever vote can relax and continue their hibernation on election day; SCOTUS will do the heavy lifting for them.
Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!

The Supreme Court was established under the U.S. Constitution but the number of judges is established by a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.  For about 150 years, that law says there will be nine (9) judges.  Faced with losing control of the judiciary, Democrat leaders have said they will raise the number of SCOTUS judges.  They have also proposed raising the number of other federal judges in order to offset the many appointments President Trump has made.  (Lower court judges aren’t as “exciting” as SCOTUS appointments, so we don’t usually hear about the them).  This effort is known as “packing” the court.  If Democrats gain complete control or if they can leverage their votes on other issues, they will raise the number of SCOTUS justices and then, when in power, they will appoint reliably anti-2A judges to SCOTUS, thereby putting the pro-2A judges into the minority and, in effect, killing the 2nd Amendment.

This, of course, is completely in line with previous far-left attempts to ignore every law and tradition that works against them, whether or not these laws and traditions are fundamental parts of American history and culture.  They view American history, traditions and culture like statues in a park that are to be toppled by the mob in search of power and control.

Elections have consequences.  The 2016 election allowed President Trump and the U.S. Senate to appoint and confirm over 200 judges, including two (before A C B) to SCOTUS.  Presumably, most of those 200+ are defenders of the 2nd Amendment.  The far-left would turn this around in an instant if they can gain control.

Don’t hibernate on November 3rd.  Vote for pro 2A candidates and bring some potential hibernators out of their caves and into the voting booth.

Primary Them Out by Tom Reynolds

Joe Crowley was a 23 year N.Y. City Democratic incumbent Congressman on the short list to replace Nancy Pelosi as U.S. House Speaker.  In 2016, he was reelected with 147,000 votes, 83% of the total votes cast.  In 2018, he was defeated by Alexandria Octavio-Cortez in the Democrat primary; she won with less than 17,000 votes, 11% of the votes Crowley got in 2016.

Felix Ortiz is a 26 year Democrat incumbent Assemblyman from N.Y. City who currently serves as Assistant Speaker of the Assembly.  In 2018, he won reelection, unopposed, with 20,738 votes.  In 2020, he was defeated in the Democrat primary by Marcela Mitaynes who got 3,591 votes and won by 272 votes.  Mitaynes got a mere 17% of the votes Ortiz received in 2018.

This data suggests that even the most entrenched incumbent in vulnerable to being beaten in a primary by a narrow but motivated electorate. All the voters have to do is show up in decent numbers, as it often takes less than 20% of the previous votes cast to defeat the incumbent.

The data also shows this is one way the radical element of the Democrat Party is taking over.  (Mitaynes could be described as a Democratic Socialist and some would say A O-C is probably best described as an insane Socialist.)  As the saying goes, 75% of life is just showing up and people rabid for power will show up while those that hate politics or are indifferent will stay home and then ask, “wha’ happened”.

In New York, one must be registered in a party in order to vote in that party’s primary.  In most election districts, a quarter of the registered voters do not register in any party.  Since ours is essentially a two party system, those who register in a non-major political party, that has little chance of a creditable showing, are eliminating themselves from selecting those who will represent them; only the two major party candidates win major elections.

Shouldn’t Democrats be concerned about the radical left movement of their party?  Shouldn’t Republicans care about Republican legislators without real commitment to basic Republican principles?  What might we do about it?  Thought: primary them out of office.  As we have seen, it will take far less votes to defeat them in a primary than in a general election.

It’s not easy to primary an incumbent, as the party organization usually sides with the incumbent who has name recognition and resources.  Non incumbents are a bit easier to primary but the party elite often pick their favorite early in the process and throw the party’s weight behind the choice.  But primary upsets do happen, as we’ve seen, if a motivated electorate arises.

But first, you have to be registered in one of the two parties that count in our system.  To be eligible to vote in next year’s primary, you must be registered as a member of that party.  The rules for registering are a bit complex as to deadlines so it is best to register (or reregister) in a party as soon as possible.  

If you are not registered in any party, you may like being labelled “independent”, but you are losing your chance to pick the candidates.  Consider registering in a major party, preferably one most in tune with your concerns which, hopefully, includes protecting the Second Amendment.  If you are registered in a minor party, think about why you are registered in that party.  Is it because you believe in that party or is it a protest against the major parties?  I know this is difficult for some people but, if you are just protesting, consider reregistering in a major party. Your party registration does not prevent you from voting for the candidate of your choice in the general election but you will have a voice in selecting one of the two candidates that will likely poll significant votes.

It seems safe to say that this message about primary voting is definitely not approved by incumbents of either major party. 

Are Democrats Secretly Trying to Elect Trump? by Tom Reynolds

While not political insiders or a TV talking heads, Americans have the ability to watch, listen and think beyond the propaganda spewed in the media.  As an “innocent bystander”, one can’t help noticing that the Democrat Party appears to be helping Trump with a number of unforced political errors.

The Democrat Party plan is to release criminals from jail, abolish bail, open the borders to criminals, subsidize illegal immigrants, defund the police and let cities burn to the ground.  Oh by-the-way, in the midst of all this carnage, Democrats also want to take away the right to keep and bear arms, so you cannot defend yourself against the chaos they created. Biden and Harris have come out squarely against the 2nd Amendment. With violence escalating, NICS checks are setting new records, more criminals are on the street and there are more calls to defund the police - taking away guns would not seem to be a smart strategy.  (Or maybe Democrats are going for the suicidal vote.)

Supporting (or at least not opposing) the riots in cities controlled by Democrat politicians undermines their support in their base.  What does the loss of some votes mean in highly Democrat majority cities?  The cities will probably still continue be Democratic majorities but Democrats carry states like New York in statewide elections because of their overwhelming majorities in cities.  If the majorities decrease enough, combined with increased voting in highly Republican rural areas, this might start to swing statewide contests to Republicans.

City riots raise fears of violence spreading to the suburbs, which could move the suburban electorate more towards Trump.  People do not enjoy being assaulted and having their livelihood burned to the ground.  More women are buying guns for protection and, given many cities’ prohibitions on gun ownership, many of these women probably live in suburbs.  (The soccer mom is turning into Sarah Palin’s pit bull with lipstick – and a Glock.)

Now, Democrats are threatening more riots if Trump nominates a Supreme court successor to Ginsburg.  Democrats were silent on the riots (excuse me, peaceful protests) until their polls started dropping.  Now, they are back to threatening more riots!  Democrats really need to rethink their election strategy.

Can Democrats hold together a coalition of both Sanders and Biden supporters?  Far-left Democrats do not compromise, so Biden has been forced to drop the image of being a moderate, that he held during the primary, and move his image to the far-left.  (Which might explain some of his confusion over whether or not he supports the 2nd Amendment.)  America is not a far-left country and the far-left ideology has to scare moderate Americans.

Oh yeah, referring to voters as racists isn’t a great way of winning votes, unless the left-wing media can say it often enough to convince those of us who cling to religion and guns that we really are racists.  (Good luck on that!)

Biden has 47 years of political history in Washington. Democrats blame Trump for every issue but it is easy for Republicans to shoot at Biden’s record (figuratively - nor literally - figuratively).

Before Ginsburg, the drumbeat amongst Democrats was for Biden to not debate Trump.  In spite of the weak excuses that Democrat politicians will make for no debate, withdrawal would only confirm the concerns that Biden is mentally and physically degenerating.  With 47 years of political experience, he should be expected to shine in debates, not merely survive. (Under the survival narrative, he gets a participation trophy for debating.)  If he is degenerating, the question Democrat strategists are asking themselves is, will he lose more votes by debating or by not debating.    

Biden is generally ahead in the polls, but Trump is far less behind than four years ago, at the same point, and he is trending upward. In recent years, the polls seem to have a 2-4% bias for Democrats, as they over sample Democrats in their mix.  Then there is the issue of sampling the general population instead of the likely voters, which happens in some polls.  Because of the Electoral College, it is individual states and not the nationwide total that counts, which negates huge Democrat Party majorities in Los Angeles and New York City.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Replacing Her by Tom Reynolds

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being lauded by the liberal media.  But by gun owners, not so much.  She dissented in 1995 on U.S. v. Lopez saying that she believed Congress can regulate guns in school under the Commerce Clause.  She dissented on the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2016, saying that gun ownership was not an individual right but a collective right.  In a 2016 interview with the NY Times she further stated, “I thought Heller was a very bad decision” and she looked forward to reconsidering it. In McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the Heller decision to the states, she joined in the dissent.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to pass on nearly a dozen gun-rights-related cases.  This was an admission that the conservative associate justices think Chief Justice John Roberts can’t be trusted to protect the Bill of Rights, with the rest of the court usually divided 4-4.  Since President Trump has proven to be pro-gun and Joe Biden to be anti-gun, the person who nominates the replacement for Bader-Ginsburg is important to gun owners; gun rights could be in the majority at 5-3-1 under Trump or back to 4-4-1 under Biden.

The left-wing media is ablaze with Republican quotes from 2016 about delaying Supreme Court nominations until the next election.  Missing are quotes from Democrats that they made in 2016. 

Let’s start with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself.  In July 2016 she stated, “Nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat.  That’s their job.  There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year”.  (This is interesting for two reasons: it reinforces Trump’s position in 2020 and R B G was actually following the Constitution instead of ignoring it.)

Chuck Schumer said in 2016, “Senate Republicans need to do their job and give Judge Garland (nominated by Obama to succeed Scalia) the hearing and vote he deserves because the American people deserve a fully functioning court. Having a deadlocked, 4-4 court could lead to judicial chaos surrounding environmental protections, voting rights, and so many other issues that are important to everyday Americans…it’s time for the Senate to do the job we were elected to do”.

In the 2016 Democrat primary debates, Hillary Clinton said, "We must all support President Obama’s right to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia and demand that the Senate hold hearings and a vote on that successor."

On March 7, 2016, a group of 356 law professors and other legal scholars released a letter (organized through the progressive group Alliance for Justice) arguing that refusing to consider a nomination was a "preemptive abdication of duty that is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government."

On March 10, 2016, the Democratic Attorneys General of 19 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia released a letter that said refusal to consider a nominee would "undermine the rule of law…”.

And finally, in 1992, Joe Biden was for delaying until after the election but was against delaying until after the election in 2016 and now he is back to being for delaying until after the election.

Oh yeah, Democrats, Antifa and Black lives matter are threatening riots if the nomination is not delayed until after the election.  That used to be called blackmail.

Intimidation as Hate Speech By Harold Moskowitz

            Berrell Trammell was an African-American small business owner.  Often, he stood on a nearby street corner holding a “Trump 2020” sign.  He told a friend that he changed his location to in front of his business because the people at the corner were likely to try to kill him.  At 12:30 P.M. on 7/24/20, he became a victim of a drive-by shooting as he held his Trump sign.  His deep belief in democracy and political free speech likely led to his murder.  What happened to Mr. Trammell can happen to anyone in today’s America.

            When constant political vilification of a political personality and his or her supporters becomes the norm, it leads to predictable results.  Today, it appears constantly on radio, cable news, T.V. sitcoms, late night comedy, and in statements by cultural personalities, sportscasters, athletes and political leaders past and present.  It appears in Hollywood productions, published media and the omnipresent internet blogs and tweets.

            This social cancer must be meaningfully addressed.  One should not have to fear that carrying a sign or wearing something identifying the person as a supporter of a candidate could result in injury or even death.  Likewise, the use of a bumper sticker or a yard sign should not induce fear of property damage.  Additionally, attending a rally or other political event should not subject the attendees to the possibility of a mob of protestors shouting vile obscenities and using violence against them.

            Not only is such vilification aimed at supporters of a targeted political candidate, it is aimed at the National Rifle Association as well.  The same techniques are used to portray the NRA as an evil organization bent on allowing miscreants to illegally obtain weapons, thus making it responsible for the massacres of school children and others.  These vilifiers are willing to condemn the five million men and women who belong to the NRA as being “red neck Neanderthals” who support violence.

            Both vilification movements emanate from the same sources.  These attacks are coordinated propaganda campaigns which follow Hitler’s Third Reich’s “Big Lie” technique.  A lie repeated over and over becomes accepted by all as being true.  They also contain elements from Saul Alinsky’s communist community organizer handbook Rules For Radicals.

            In all cases, coordinated vilification is a form of intimidation designed to alienate the target and to weaken it to the point of destruction.  This radical method to suppress or destroy opposition must be eliminated if our democratic political system is to endure.  It is likely what led to Berrell Trammell’s murder as he exercised his First Amendment rights on a street in Milwaukee.  Constant vilification is truly “hate speech” and potentially causes violence.  Our political “elites” at all levels of government need to step aside from politics and recognize what it really is.  They need to have the backbone to rein it in or face political backlash for inaction.

Comparing Presidential Candidates by Steve Getman

Rarely in American history – perhaps last in 1860 when Lincoln was elected – has there been such a wide divide between the two major parties and their candidates for President.  Yesterday we compared the Vice-Presidential candidates and today we present the Presidential candidates’ positions on the 2^nd Amendment.

President Donald Trump, a Republican, has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), with that group saying he delivered on his promise to protect Second Amendment rights.  Among the reasons:

• Trump announced his “un-signing” of the anti-gun United Nations Arms Trade Treaty appeared at the NRA-ILA Annual Leadership Forum;
• He designated gun businesses to be “critical infrastructure” during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing them to remain open in many areas;
• Trump loosened regulations on the export of firearms and the online publication of technical information about guns;
•  He supported right-to-carry reciprocity;
• Trump has worked to expand millions of acres of public access to law-biding gun owners and to reverse bans on traditional ammunition;
• After Democrats introduced federal legislation in 2018 to expand background checks and more tightly regulate gun sales and transfers, he threatened to veto the measures;
• Perhaps, most importantly, the President has appointed a large number of conservative federal judges.  By the end of July 2020, the President had appointed 201 federal judges.  These appointments, some analysts say, have already given a boost to legal challenges to gun control laws.

Biden’s record on gun control covers 47 years, as a Presidential candidate, as Vice President and as a member of the U.S. Senate.  His record has been replete with anti-gun measures, earning him an “F” from NRA:

• Biden pushed the Brady Bill and brags he was the person who got it passed;
• He supported (and supports) the so-called “assault weapons ban;”
• Biden supported (and supports) closing the so-called “gun show loophole;”
• He voted against prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence;
• Biden was asked by President Obama to head up the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force;
• Biden has endorsed federal handgun bans and gun-owner licensing;
• He supports banning online sales of weapons and ammunition and requiring background checks for people buying gun kits or 3D printer codes for guns;
• Biden has referred to 9 mm pistols as “military style weapons;”
• During a 2019 interview with CNN, Biden explicitly said his administration would support gun confiscation.

The ratings for 2^nd Amendment support seems fairly clear.  Trump gets and A and Biden gets an F.

Note: Thanks to Steve Getman for researching these facts.