…or at least when he was a “law professor” (adjunct instructor) at the University of Chicago he didn’t.

WorldNet Daily has an interesting allegation from one of our current president’s former colleagues…

A fellow professor with Barack Obama at the University of Chicago in the 1990s told radio host Laura Ingraham last week that the man who would become president once insisted, “People shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.”

That professor was John Lott, already known then as a leading gun-rights advocate and now author of several books, including “More Guns, Less Crime” and“Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t.”

“I knew Obama at the University of Chicago,” Lott told Ingraham. “We both taught there at the same time for about four years, and I talked to him about guns. I know what his views are on that.

“The first time I ever met him, I went, introduced myself, he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy,’” Lott recalled. “He said to me, ‘I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.’”

Ingraham stopped the interview to clarify that Obama wasn’t talking about criminals owning guns but everyday citizens.

“No, it was very clear,” Lott said. “He said, ‘I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992-2004, and Lott was a visiting professor and fellow at the university from 1994-1999.

Despite Obama’s job description, Lott claims Obama stated views in bold violation of the Constitution he taught about – specifically the 2nd Amendment, which states, in part, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“This just gives people a good idea of what he really wants to have, what his ideal country would have in terms of regulations,” Lott said.

At Breitbart, there’s audio of Ingraham’s interview with Lott…

This would be an interesting revelation, and one which the public should have known about. It’s unsurprising that the New York Times didn’t think Obama’s expressed contempt for the 2nd Amendment was newsworthy back in 2008 when it was time to vet Candidate Obama, but perhaps it will gain a little more traction now.

Because it would take the kind of commitment to gun control that Lott expresses in his remembrance of Obama to explain something as wildly irresponsible as Fast and Furious or politically loopy as the UN Small Arms Treaty. No politician worth his salt outside of the lefty-dominated big cities would engage in gun-grabbing along the lines of what Obama is currently attempting.

But then it doesn’t appear Obama is worth his salt.

It’s worth mentioning that Obama’s first impulse after the Aurora shootings was to advocate for gun control, though he was told by Harry Reid that wasn’t going to happen this year and has since let the matter drop outside of pandering to the gun-grabbers at the Urban League in New Orleans last week by babbling about “AK-47’s belonging on the battlefield of war, not in our streets.” Obama’s experience as president indicates that while he’s limited by the need for re-election he’s not a mortal threat to 2nd Amendment rights.

But if he wins re-election? Lott mentions gun-grabbers on the Supreme Court as an obvious effect, but more than that are the regulatory actions infringing on the 2nd Amendment a 2nd Obama term might bring.

The 2nd Amendment hasn’t been a major issue in the 2012 campaign. But it ought to be.