Trump vs. Biden vs. Obama: Which President Really Backed the 2A?

Attorney Tom Grieve opens his analysis with a blunt premise: if you care about the Second Amendment, you need to care about judges. Lifetime federal judgeships outlast any single administration, and, per Grieve, their rulings are now shaping gun rights at a pace we’ve never seen. His video aims to answer a deceptively simple question with data: measured by the decisions their judges make, which presidents actually stacked the courts with jurists who support the Second Amendment? I’ll walk through Grieve’s numbers and add some context on what those percentages mean – and what they don’t.

Grieve’s Big Picture: Litigation Is Exploding

According to Tom Grieve, the 2A courtroom landscape changed dramatically after two Supreme Court milestones. Before Heller (2008), gun-rights challenges had about a 3% success rate. Post-Bruen (2022), Grieve says success jumped to roughly 25%, with 78 favorable decisions in 2023 alone – about a quarter of all pro-2A holdings since 2000 appearing in a single year. He adds that federal courts are now issuing about two Second Amendment rulings every working day, with 2,000+ challenges filed since Bruen and roughly 1,600 rulings already out. Love or loathe the litigation boom, it’s here – and judicial philosophy now matters more than ever.

Heller and Bruen: The Rulebook in One Paragraph

Grieve recaps the rulebook: District of Columbia v. Heller recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, not tethered to militia service. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen then told lower courts how to judge modern gun laws: if the government wants to restrict the right, it must show the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition – typically Founding-era through the Civil War, not the wave of post-Reconstruction statutes. That history-and-tradition test is why statewide bans and licensing schemes are getting picked apart – and why the leanings of judges are suddenly decisive.

Where the Fights Are Filed (and Why That Skews the Map)

Per Tom Grieve, challenges tend to be filed where the laws are strict. In a sample of 95 post-Bruen suits he cites, 77 were brought in Democratic-controlled states, targeting everything from “assault-weapon” and magazine bans to licensing, sensitive places, and age limits. There’s a practical reason: you generally must sue where the law exists, so the toughest laws generate the most cases. That filing geography matters when you interpret outcomes; a judge’s “support” rate reflects not only philosophy, but also the types of laws and arguments showing up on his or her docket.

Trump’s Judicial Legacy by the Numbers

Here’s the headline figure from Tom Grieve: Trump appointees support the Second Amendment about 50% of the time in his dataset. Split by age, he says Trump judges under 55 back the 2A 61% of the time, versus roughly 40% for older Trump judges (he’s clear that number isn’t weighted). My read: if younger judges are more protective of 2A rights, the long-tail impact of the Trump years could grow as those judges serve for decades. Of course, the mix of cases matters too; a narrow procedural ruling can look “anti-” or “pro-” depending on how you score it.

Obama’s and Biden’s Records, per Grieve

On the other side of the ledger, Tom Grieve reports Obama appointees support the Second Amendment under 1% of the time in his review – a vanishingly small figure – while Biden appointees come in at 18.75%. Those numbers will fuel endless debate, but a caution is warranted: case posture, circuit culture, and statutory mix influence outcomes. Still, taken at face value, Grieve’s data suggests an enormous gulf between the judges installed by Republican vs. Democratic presidents in how often they rule for 2A claims.

Bush’s Middle-of-the-Pack Score

George W. Bush’s appointees, Tom Grieve says, support the Second Amendment 22.7% of the time – well above Obama’s and Biden’s but below Trump’s. That tracks with the era: much of Bush’s pipeline entered the judiciary pre-Heller, when 2A doctrine was unsettled and litigation sparser. It’s not that Bush’s judges are anti-2A; rather, they may have encountered different legal questions, in different courts, and under different standards. If nothing else, the Bush number underscores Grieve’s larger point: who sits in the White House meaningfully shapes the courts you’ll argue in later.

Red vs. Blue on the Bench

Stepping back from presidents, Tom Grieve aggregates by party: Republican-appointed judges support the 2A about 36% of the time, while Democratic-appointed judges do so about 17% of the time. He translates that as a GOP-appointed judge being more than twice as likely to side with a Second Amendment claim. My note of caution: what counts as “support” can vary by methodology, and a judge can issue a procedural ruling that isn’t a referendum on the right itself. But directionally, Grieve’s figures mirror what many court-watchers observe term after term.

Why Elections (and the Senate) Matter, Practically

Tom Grieve drives home a civics lesson that too many voters forget: presidents appoint, but the Senate confirms. He estimates roughly 25% of the federal judiciary turns over every four years. Two consecutive presidential terms can reshape the courts for a generation, and reversing that lineup “takes literally decades,” as Grieve puts it. This is the quiet, structural reason gun policy whipsaws across the country: not just new laws, but new judges measuring those laws against Heller and Bruen. If the Second Amendment is your issue, judicial confirmations are not background noise – they’re the main event.

What These Percentages Don’t Tell You (and Why That Matters)

Let me inject some healthy skepticism while still honoring Tom Grieve’s work. A “support rate” hides nuance: district vs. circuit courts face different constraints; some opinions are procedural (standing, ripeness) rather than merits; and some “losses” for plaintiffs are narrow, leaving the door open in the next case. Also, the regional mix of cases (e.g., Ninth vs. Fifth Circuit) can skew the apparent temperature. The bottom line: Grieve’s scoreboard is useful directionally, and it validates what practitioners feel in the trenches, but don’t treat any single percentage as gospel truth for every future case.

Strategic Takeaways for 2A Advocates

On strategy, Tom Grieve is unequivocal: vote, and pay attention to judges. My add: if you’re serious about the Second Amendment, track judicial nominations and committee votes, not just election night headlines. Support litigation that builds clean records under Bruen’s test; messy facts make bad law. Recognize the state-level battlefield too: as Grieve notes, most post-Bruen suits have been filed in blue states because that’s where restrictions are heaviest. Finally, invest in public education; the more ordinary citizens understand Heller and Bruen, the harder it is to sell laws that can’t meet the history-and-tradition standard.

The Scorecard, Plainly Stated – and a Final Caveat

If you want the scoreboard exactly as Tom Grieve reports it: Trump appointees ~50% (with under-55s at 61%), Bush 22.7%, Biden 18.75%, Obama <1%. Party-wise, Republican appointees 36%, Democratic appointees 17%. Those are striking gaps. My caveat remains: these figures reflect a particular slice of cases, scored by a particular methodology during a period of doctrinal upheaval. But if you’re asking which president, per Grieve’s dataset, most reliably backed the 2A via judicial appointments, the answer isn’t close: Trump, with Bush a distant second, Biden lagging, and Obama nearly a null set.

Kindling, Not a Vessel

Tom Grieve closes with a quote from Plutarch: “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” Consider the fire kindled. The lesson here is less about adoration for any one politician and more about strategy: courts are the long game, and judges are the pieces on the board that keep moving long after the election night confetti is swept away. If the Second Amendment is your line in the sand, the numbers Grieve compiled point to a simple conclusion – presidents and senators who appoint and confirm your judges may be the most consequential “gun policy” decision you ever make.