(AP Photo/Nati Harnik)
Previous Post
Next Post

The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention has become a significant threat to our guns and our civil rights.

When the office was unveiled in September 2023, President Joe Biden said it would, “centralize, accelerate, and intensify our work to save more lives more quickly. That’s what it was designed to do. It will drive and coordinate a government and nationwide effort to reduce gun violence.”

The office wields tremendous power but operates in secrecy, without oversight. It has no website.

Its budget has never been made public. Its staffing levels are not known. Only three actual members have ever been identified—the director and two deputy directors. All three are radical anti-gun zealots. One has a long association with former President Barack Obama.

Neither Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris, who oversees the office—at least officially—has ever clearly articulated what the office is supposed to do, other than “reduce gun violence” and “build on historic actions taken by President Biden to end gun violence.”

Biden’s “historic actions” are well known and include calls for red flag laws; universal background checks, which would open the door to firearm registration; banning popular semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines; revoking licenses of gun dealers for minor clerical errors; and pushing Congress to pass laws that would force gun owners to comply with firearm storage regulations, which would likely be followed by mandatory home inspections to insure compliance.

Using open-source and other data, the Second Amendment Foundation examined the office’s key personnel, budget and operations. The findings reveal a Star Chamber of sorts, designed to come up with ways to chip away at the Second Amendment and then push them out to the states, without any scrutiny from Congress, the courts or the public.

“For the first time in the history of the United States a president has created an office within the White House solely to find ways to circumvent and violate the Constitution,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “And do not forget that taxpayer dollars are supporting this abomination. We are paying the Biden-Harris administration to violate our civil rights.”

Key Personnel

Stefanie Feldman was named director of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox, whom the White House described as “leading gun violence prevention advocates” were named Special Assistants to the President and Deputy Directors.

All three were well known within the gun-ban industry, which celebrated the new office and its staff.

“The creation of an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the White House will mark a turning point in how our federal government responds to an epidemic that plagues every state and every community in America,” Brady president Kris Brown told the Associated Press. Brady, he said, had advocated for an office in the White House since 2020.

Feldman is one of Biden’s longest serving policy advisors. She worked with him for more than 10 years. Previously, she had worked as National Policy Director for the Biden-Harris presidential campaign. She also served as the inaugural Policy Director for the Biden Institute at the University of Delaware’s Joseph R. Biden School of Public Policy Administration.

Feldman started her White House career as an intern when Biden was Vice President. Feldman’s specialty is gun violence prevention. Her Twitter account contains a litany of anti-gun posts. Feldman, along with First Lady Jill Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, recently helped sell a template to schools that principals and administrators could use to gaslight parents into supporting gun control. While Deputy Assistant to the President, Feldman wrote many of Biden’s anti-gun press releases, including one titled “Taking on Gun Crime and Violence with a Whole-of-Government Approach.”

In a call with reporters last year, Feldman foreshadowed her office’s plans, saying there are “policies where the White House and this administration have made progress at the federal level. And we are going to continue to call on Congress to act but, in the meantime, we are going to be working hand in hand with states to advance all these agenda items.”

Before he was picked to serve in the White House, Greg Jackson was executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, which is funded by Tides Advocacy, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit with more than $50 million in assets. Influence Watch describes Jackson’s Community Justice Action Fund as “the lobbying arm of the gun-control advocacy and criminal justice reform group Community Justice Reform Coalition (CJRC). CJAF acts as a centralized funding organization for advocacy work done by both groups, which is largely focused on stemming gun violence against Black Americans and placing race relations in the center of the debate on gun control.”

“CJAF often pushes the boundaries of its gun-violence advocacy mission in favor of radical-left views on race. While they supported the passage of legislation that would create stricter access to firearms, they also balked at an added provision supported by 26 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives that would report illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if they attempted to buy a gun, which is forbidden under federal law,” Influence Watch found.

In a 2022 interview with NPR, Jackson said he was a “survivor of gun violence.” He was shot in April 2013 while walking by two people having an altercation that turned into gunfire. As a survivor, Jackson was very clear about his goals for the new office.

“Well, I think there’s a lot we can change. But most importantly, we need to acknowledge this as a public health crisis,” he told NPR.

Jackson’s association with Obama dates back to 2008, when his began as co-chair of DC for Obama. In 2010, Jackson served as field director of Obama’s North Carolina campaign. In 2012, he was field director of Obama for America. In 2013, he became the Southern Regional Gun Violence Issue Coordinator at Organizing for Action, and in 2014, Jackson was the national field director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Like Jackson, Rob Wilcox calls himself a “gun violence survivor.” Wilcox told People magazine how his 19-year-old cousin Laura was shot and killed 10 years ago, and how he became an anti-gun activist, “not by choice, but by circumstance.”

“I don’t know that you have to be this close to the pain to see the need for change,” Wilcox told the magazine. :But as the president had said, some of us turn pain into purpose.”

When he was chosen by the White House, Wilcox was working as an anti-gun lobbyist—senior director of federal government affairs for Everytown for Gun Safety, which is one of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s well-funded anti-gun groups.

Wilcox has called for banning semi-automatic firearms, standard-capacity magazines and overturning the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields gunmakers from liability if their products are used in the commission of a crime.


The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is funded by an annual appropriation Congress allocates to the executive branch. How the appropriation is spent is solely at the discretion of the White House. The total amount the gun-control office receives is not known, and the White House is immune from most requests made under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Last year, according to White House documents, Feldman received an annual salary of $168,000 while serving as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Jackson’s and Wilcox’s salaries were not yet included in the 2023 document.

Since the next administration could disband the office, Democrats have introduced legislation that would make the gun-control office a permanent fixture by moving it from the White House to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy. H.R. 1699, known as the Office of Gun Violence Prevention Act of 2023, was sponsored by Senator Chris Murphy, (D-Conn.) and Congressman Maxwell Frost, (D-FL-10). It has garnered 92 co-sponsors—all Democrats—but has not seen any substantive legislative action.

The bill would require the director to recommend anti-gun policy to Congress and the president. It would create an advisory council, consisting of members of the Attorney General’s office along with the directors of the FBI, ATF and other federal offices. The bill calls for additional advisory council members, which would include gun violence survivors, public health and medical professionals and other community members. Representatives of the firearm industry did not make the list.


After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, part of which said that carrying a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, blue states began passing post-Bruen “tantrum” laws—legislation they knew violated Bruen and was therefore unconstitutional.

These same politicians began introducing anti-gun legislation in earnest: “assault weapon” and standard-capacity magazine bans, Red Flag laws, so-called “safe storage” requirements, universal background checks and more. Much of the legislation was similar. It’s no secret where it came from. After Bruen, Feldman started holding meetings with state officials to push gun control even before her office had been created.

In August 2022, just two months after Bruen, Feldman met with state lawmakers to push Red Flag laws. Participants included:

 Maryland Speaker of the House Adrienne Jones

 Kentucky Senate Minority Leader Morgan McGarvey

 Former Florida Senate President Bill Galvano

 Florida State Senator Lori Berman

 Florida State Representative Christine Hunschofsky

 Maryland State Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary

 Maryland State Senator Jeff Waldstreicher

 Minnesota State Representative Kelly Moller

 Minnesota State Representative Dave Pinto

 New Hampshire State Representative Debra Altschiller

 Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer O’Mara

 Pennsylvania State Representative Todd Stephens

 Texas State Senator Roland Gutierrez

In February 2023, Feldman met with officials to tout the administration’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which gave states $750 million to implement more Red Flag laws. Participants included:

 Colorado State Representative Mike Weissman

 Florida State Senator Lori Berman

 Illinois State Representative Maura Hirschauer

 Michigan State Representative Kelly Breen

 Michigan State Representative Ranjeev Puri

 Michigan State Senator Rosemary Bayer

In April 2023, Feldman met with state lawmakers to “discuss way to hold gun manufacturers accountable.” Biden had been pushing hard for the repeal of the PLCAA. He still is. Participants included:

 California State Assemblymember Phil Ting

 Colorado State Senator Jaquez Lewis

 Colorado State Senator Chris Kolker

 Colorado State Representative Jennifer Parenti

 Colorado State Representative Javier Mabrey

 Florida State Representative Christine Hunschofsky

 Maryland State Senator Jeff Waldstreicher

 New Jersey State Assemblymember John McKeon

 New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie

 New York State Assemblymember Patricia Fahy

In October 2023, Feldman, Wilcox and Jackson met with lieutenant governors to discuss “ways the Lieutenant Governors can be a partner to help enact policies to prevent gun violence in their communities and what resources are available at the federal level to address gun crimes and violent crimes generally.” The exact details of their meeting were not disclosed. Participants included:

 Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Austin Davis

 Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan

 Michigan Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist II

 Rhode Island Lieutenant Governor Sabina Matos

 Maryland Lieutenant Governor Aruna Miller

 Treasurer of Oregon Tobias Read

 Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Sara Rodriguez

 Vermont Lieutenant Governor David Zukerman

In December 2023, Vice President Harris hosted a gaggle of state lawmakers at the White House to showcase new gun-control policies that had been developed by the White House office, which were designed to “combat gun violence at the state level.” The names of the attendees were not released, nor were the details of the meeting. None of the meetings were recorded or transcribed, and they are just a few of the meetings that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention office held with lawmakers.


The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention has become both an incubator and a clearinghouse for anti-gun policy. Its very existence is an affront to the Second Amendment—its secrecy, an insult.

Despite some successes in pushing their radical agenda to the states, Feldman, Jackson, Wilcox and their staff should not get too comfortable. It is doubtful the next administration will require their services, and history will not be kind to the first White House office designed solely to violate Americans’ civil rights.

— Lee Williams for The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This office is an unconstitutional allocation that operates using un-elected officials given power and title and authority as if elected (look at their video about it) that was never authorized either in law or constitutionally for the president to create or grant, and its being used to to formulate and enact defacto-law thus usurping the constitutional authority of Congress by backdoor means of ‘executive order’.

      • Look at the picture of this woman. Then zoom in on her from eyebrows to lips.


        What would you do if this person looked at you like this in a bar. Grocery store. Line in a bank. Anywhere. There is no smile in her eyes. Totally artificial person. Nothing inside. NPC.

        This is one of the useful idiots for “gun violence prevention.”

        • That smile is called ‘Duper’s delight’ (its an actual Psychology term). Its a sign of a deceiver and liar, its a psychological give away of the joy someone experiences from deceiving or getting away with a lie. Its a common thing among the left wing anti-gun, its common in their manipulation tactics. Its also common in the ‘woke’ manipulation tactics.

        • The ‘Duper’s delight’ smile takes different forms, the one in your link is an example of an exaggerated form. If you watch Biden carefully when he’s giving speeches you will see a more less-exaggerated form of it. You see it with Harris also, you also see it with that idiot in the video for the white house of gun violence prevention. You have seen it on all of the Anti-gun orgs upper echelon at one time or another in their pictures. Its literally the answer to “How do you know they are lying?” “its because their lips are moving.”

        • Not everyone who smiles like this is lying at the time, but none the less its still a sign of a deceiver and liar in some context. For example, when Biden tells those stories of his younger days you will see it sometimes and you know what he is telling is a lie because that particular story has already been completely debunked but he takes a delight in telling that lie and deceiving people with it so that little slight psychological give away smile appears. Its the same with his other anti-gun stuff. Another example, Shannon Watts did it when she told in public speaking what we already knew to be a whopper because it had already been completely debunked, her twitter profile pic today uses the same exact slight smile. Another example, Kamala Harris does it too when she tells a whopper we already know to be a lie because its been completely debunked. Its common among anti-gun when they tell the whoppers we already know to be lies because they have been completely debunked. Its also common among ‘trans’ activist when they speak about ‘transitioning children’, its common through the whole ‘woke’. Its common in left wing wing anti-gun politicians, for example, Hochul will do a slight momentary psychological give away smile at some point when she talks about gun-control stuff knowing it to be unconstitutional as she delights in deceiving the public about it. Its common among anti-gun activists when they regurgitate the anti-gun talking points that we already know to be lies.

  2. The Democrats ever spouting about defending and preserving the “rule of law”. In fact they are the most despicable violators, and haters of the Constitution as is demonstrated by this article. They must be defeated at all costs.

  3. “largely focused on stemming gun violence against Black Americans”
    Maybe start with the Black Americans, they seem to be big on committing violence against Black Americans

    • That’s pretty good social engineering wordplay by them. Bernays would be proud.

      It’s not about the words used. It’s about the images those words conjure.

    • Between “cultural mutual combat” and many individuals with anger management issues no wonder a particular demographic is adversely affected.

  4. 2A FOUNDERS PROVEN RIGHT, AGAIN: Finland Adopts NEW Policies Embracing the Right to Bear Arms.

    Finland intends to open up hundreds of new shooting ranges to encourage its gun culture. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes.

  5. If You Have A Gun, You’re Ignorant Says Cheech and Chong Actor (note: every thing this anti-gun idiot says is the typical anti-gun ignorance of reality. Its the same delusional logical falacy arguments every anti-gun org have given. lightly debunked here by Colion because the arguments are self debubunked by reality and basically Joe Rogan debunks them as well in some aspects, debunked again as they have been in the past.)

      • Possibly. Long term chronic marijuana use has been linked to: For those genetically predisposed – mental health disorders of various types, for example, schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. For most if not all such users – linked to several areas of cognitive impairment.

  6. Well it’s like this…You can keep the demoCrap or flush it in November. Start today by telling your politically inept headline reading bumpstock crybaby aquantencies who held hands with democRats to denigrate POTUS DJT to wipe the snot off their faces and shape up. At this point there is no room left for any and all pompous lip smacking more harm than good spoiled brat Gun Talker complaints about POTUS DJT.

    TRUMP 2024.

  7. An amicus brief filed by multiple gun control groups today in our lawsuit challenging Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban claims that flash suppressors “render firearms more accurate at long distances”: https://t.co/CpAh5oTzbT pic.twitter.com/dBdPlY0aIr

    — Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 17, 2024

  8. “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?

    — Patrick Henry, 1788”


    “In his famous quote, … Patrick Henry expresses the concern and frustration over the idea that a society might reach a point where its citizens are deemed unfit to be entrusted with the responsibility of bearing arms to defend themselves. This quote, spoken in the context of the American Revolution, highlights Henry’s strong belief in the fundamental right to self-defense and the importance of an armed citizenry to uphold liberty. At its core, Henry’s quote questions the notion that a government or any authority should decide whether its people can be trusted with weapons. It calls attention to the inherent danger of giving too much power to those in authority, potentially leading to a state of subjugation and degradation for the people. This sentiment resonates not only within the historical context of the Revolution but also in modern-day discussions surrounding gun control and personal liberties. However, beyond the surface interpretation of Henry’s quote lies a deeper philosophical concept: the fine line between trust and control. It raises the question of whether trust can truly exist in a society without allowing individuals their rights to bear arms. This concept introduces a broader discussion about the balance between personal freedom and governmental control, forcing us to contemplate the nature of trust itself. Trust is often regarded as a crucial pillar of harmonious human relations. It implies a willingness to place confidence in others and assumes a certain level of responsibility. But what happens when trust is arbitrarily withheld? Is it truly trust if it is imposed by external forces, rather than freely given? These questions force us to critically evaluate the nature and legitimacy of trust that is conditional upon surrendering certain rights and freedoms. One could argue that trust cannot exist without a sense of autonomy. A society that is deprived of its ability to defend itself through arms becomes wholly dependent on the government for its safety, which raises concerns regarding the potential for abuse of power. Henry’s quote reminds us of the dangers inherent in this dynamic, urging us to question whether a society that cannot be trusted with arms is truly trusted at all. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the concept of trust and control extends beyond the realm of arms. While Henry’s quote primarily focuses on the right to bear arms, it serves as a broader metaphor for the potential erosion of trust in the face of excessive control and authority. It prompts us to think about the ways in which trust can be undermined by the overreach of those in power, leading to a degradation of societal bonds and a loss of individual freedoms.In conclusion, Patrick Henry’s quote serves as a powerful reminder of the delicate balance between trust and control within a society. It challenges us to critically evaluate the nature of trust itself and raises important questions about the legitimacy of trust that is imposed by external forces. Beyond its historical significance, Henry’s words prompt us to reflect on the potential dangers that lurk when authority is allowed to dictate the rights and liberties of its citizens. By contemplating the philosophical concept of trust in relation to control, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue of arms and individual freedoms.”

  9. We need to start suing gun controllers. We also need to be taking offices for ourselves. Take a few years off from your job and give to this country. Save our Constitution….

  10. It’s been far too long since traitorous politicians and bureaucrats were dragged into the street and tarred and feathered and it shows.

  11. Tides is a donor advised fund which are all shady as F. A DAF acts like a proxy server for non profits, allowing NBOs to fund other NGOs discreety. This means any charity can invest some or all of their collected funds into other NGOs of non related causes without the donor’s knowledge.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here