As if the country was clamoring for more government alphabet soup, on Friday, September 22, 2023, President Biden strolled into the White House Rose Garden and declared that he would be creating an “Office of Gun Violence Prevention.” The annunciation of this absurd agency brings to mind several questions. What will be the purpose of this novel executive entity? What authority will this department wield? In what way will this bureau’s responsibilities overlap with those of the ATF? What service will this division provide of which the ATF is incapable?
Before mentioning this new office, Biden engaged in his usual lying, propagandizing, and obfuscating:
Since the tragedy in Sandy Hook — and I remember being there. I remember that — how I met with every one of the parents who were there. I met with every member — every family member.
This claim was challenged in 2019 by a brother of one of the children killed who says Joe Biden did not come to Sandy Hook - Obama did. To my knowledge, that challenge has never been refuted. The President went on to state that “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.” First, what does the number of rounds someone needs (or wants) in a magazine have to do with that person’s right to own a gun? Nothing. Does the Second Amendment say, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the owner needs 80 shots in a magazine”? Perhaps he would be just as comfortable saying, “if you need more than 80 words to express yourself, you don’t need free speech.” Or would such a statement be too offensive to the First Amendment?
Another statement the president made in his speech was “After every mass shooting, we hear a simple message — the same message heard all over the country, and I’ve been to every mass shooting: Do something.” Though he claims that his administration has worked “relentlessly to do something,” the only “something” he seems to find acceptable is trampling the rights of the citizens he has sworn to uphold. While there are many ways we can, to an extent, protect people (especially children), the only acceptable solution for people like Joseph Robinette Biden is gun control. Among other things is his typical assault on so-called “assault weapons”: “we once banned assault weapons and multiple magazines. We’re going to do it again.” This is nothing but propaganda. First, the term “assault weapon” (just like the term “ghost gun”) is a term that was made up, not based on the functionality of any particular firearm, but simply to evoke fear or other emotion in an effort to gin up support for gun control. Any “weapon” can be used for “assault,” just as most weapons can be used for defense. If someone kills another person with a rock, do we label that weapon an “assault stone?” What about all the “assault knives” out there that have been used in stabbing attacks? Unfortunately, this particular piece of agitprop has so worked its way into the American vocabulary that it is not likely to ever go away.
The other bothersome bit of this ballyhoo is the fact that these so-called “assault weapons” (typically, in Bidenese, referring to AR15s) are used in far fewer violent crimes than almost any other weapon. According to FBI statistics, knives are used in assaults multiple times more than AR15s. These same published numbers tell us that hands and feet are responsible for more deaths each year than “assault rifles.” Shall we ban hands and feet? Just something to think about. But I digress.
Further in the speech, the president finally provides four points regarding the responsibilities of the newly minted Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP):
First, to expedite the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the executive actions already announced. And I mean it: We’re going to fully implement it.
Second, coordinate more support for survivors, families, and communities affected by gun violence, including mental health care, financial assistance — the same way FEMA responds to natural disasters. (Applause.) The same way. And it helps folks recover and rebuild and alter. Look, folks, shootings are the ultimate superstorm, ripping through communities.
Third, identify new executive actions we can take within our legal authority to reduce gun violence.
And fourth, expand our coalition of partners in states and cities across America because we do have partners to get more — we need more state and local help to get these laws passed locally as well — and to strengthen our laws and give us more hope.
To the first point, the only executive actions (aside from creating this new “office”) that Biden mentions in his speech are “cracking down on ghost guns” and “breaking up gun trafficking.” It is unclear what gun trafficking the president’s executive orders have managed to break up, and to date, the ATF’s new rule on 80% lower receivers (so called “ghost guns” - Are You Afraid of Ghosts?) is still battling its way through the courts. The ATF has already this year had several of its new “rules” vacated by the courts; it would not be unrealistic to believe the 80% rule will be vacated as well. I wrote already about the president’s Executive Orders and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act here: EO, EO, No! Suffice to say, they will do little, if anything, to stop violence of any kind.
On the second point, while the measures mentioned all sound very compassionate, they all also beg the same question: what is the Constitutional basis for the federal government being involved in any of this? It may sound cold-hearted to say so, but there is no such authority or responsibility granted to the U.S. Government by the document that defines it. The federal government’s Constitutional responsibilities are very limited, and while culturally most have grown to look to government to solve such issues, these do not fall within the purview of the federal government’s authority. In addition, the executive branch’s job is essentially to enforce the law - not to act as a caretaker or charity.
At the risk of being intentionally and explicitly redundant with the president’s third point, there are no “executive actions” within the “legal authority” of the executive branch that will “reduce gun violence” except to enforce the laws already on the books. Of course, since “gun violence” occurs in local communities, it is a matter that falls in the jurisdiction of local law enforcement - not the federal government. Yet many presidents believe they have the authority to issue Executive Orders that are effectively “laws.” Executive Orders, something never mentioned in the Constitution, have “legal authority” only to instruct executive departments how to carry out or enforce legislation authored by Congress, not to institute new laws by fiat. I wrote about that in another article titled I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself.
Still, this distinction has stopped few presidents from attempting to circumvent the system via Executive Order, which also bring us to the topic of the ATF and “rules.” The ATF’s authoring of rules (much like any other regulatory agencies that issue rules or regulations) is akin to the president writing Executive Orders. The agency decides an action should be considered impermissible, so a rule or regulation is written explaining the prohibition of said action then implements the rule by having it published in the federal register. The problem here is that, just like Executive Orders, this process circumvents the one and only governmental body given Constitutional authority to generate legislation - Congress. This fact underpins the judicial rulings overturning many of the ATF’s recent rules, citing overreach of authority. The executive branch, and any of its included agencies, only has authority to enforce law, not compose it.
Lastly, the President explains that he plans on engaging in the behavior many have been decrying for years - government cooperating with NGOs to exert influence that government alone cannot. What do you think he means by “coalition of partners in states and cities across America?” What this fourth point tells us is that the Office of Gun Violence Prevention is going to be a conduit for anti-gun lobbyists to interact directly with the executive branch. If you doubt, looking at the people who have been drafted to run this office will prove enlightening.
First is Kamala Harris who has been tapped to oversee this office. Considering her record (or abject failure) in her role as border czar, one must wonder if the OGVP is being setup for failure from the start. Perhaps it is just a showpiece, a bit of kabuki theater or a Potemkin village, intended to give the appearance of effort while actually accomplishing nothing? Alas, I do not believe this to be the case. Vice President Harris has a history of being opposed to private firearms ownership and has in the past endorsed mandatory “buy-backs” (the inanity of that term should be self-explanatory). Beyond Harris, however, is where things get interesting.
According to a White House press release issued the day before President Biden’s speech, two deputy directors will be assigned to the OGVP: Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox. The press release reveals that “Greg Jackson has led the Community Justice Action Fund.” What is this fund you ask? This “Fund” has a three-point policy agenda:
Invest in Proven Strategies to Prevent Gun Violence Before It Happens.
Advance a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence.
Ending Gender Based Violence.
If you want more detail regarding what they mean by these, you can read them on their own website: https://www.cjactionfund.org/policy-agenda . To summarize, the first calls on government to put money and effort into further gun control laws (which are unconstitutional and don’t work), treat firearm deaths as a “health crisis” (which is ludicrous on its face), and address the (fictional) “higher risk” of violence against “lesbian, gay, bisexual, two spirit, trans and gender non-conforming people.” The CJAF is funded by Tides Advocacy, which bills itself as “a fearless partner for people fighting for social justice, helping them mobilize communities, build political power and change policy.” Their focus is on “dismantling inequities and creating a just society.”
Meanwhile, Rob Wilcox “served as the Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety.” Anyone who is familiar with Everytown knows that it is a gun control advocacy group funded by billionaire anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg. Their action plans include:
Enacting and implementing smart gun policies
Electing gun sense candidates
Demanding accountability
Advocating for safety reforms locally and nationally
As their site states, “For too long, life-saving laws have been thwarted by the gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.” All of that is shorthand for “enact more gun control laws.” This is easily seen on the page where they list their “evidence-based” solutions.
So, in essence, the OGVP is an executive department staffed by anti-gun activists and providing a direct conduit for anti-gun organizations to lobby and advocate activism through the federal government. I see little difference between this attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment via an alphabet agency and other government entities coercing social media companies to subvert the First Amendment. The government is waging war against its people under the pretense of providing a protection it is neither intended nor equipped to provide.
A large part of the problem is a general misunderstanding on the part of we the people regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution defines the power and authority granted the federal government by we the people and the States. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights to the people from the government, but rather restrains the government from violating the rights of the people. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the people’s right to speak their minds, to practice their religion, and to operate a free press. The Second Amendment, despite all of President Biden’s cries and lies to the contrary, prohibits the government from interfering with the people’s right to own (keep) and carry (bear) arms (a term that was wisely written by the founders in a generic form with the foresight that arms would advance in nature).
Like it or not, do a little study on the history of the founding of the Union now known as “the United States of America,” and you will find that the founding fathers owned and used “weapons of war” to defeat what at the time was arguably the most powerful military on earth, and this is what they had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment - that we the people would be able to own “weapons of war”. I have written more about this, and you can find the articles under the Second Amendment section of my substack main page.
To summarize, President Biden’s new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is a farce. The agency wields no power but that of activists influencing an already-convinced Executive that it is in our best interest to deny us our rights. Even the precogs in the movie “Minority Report,” despite their prescience, could not prevent crime. The only other potential result I can foresee would be for government to give our tax dollars to organizations dedicated to activism and lobbying toward further infringement of our rights. If we’re fortunate, the new OGVP will have a lifespan similar to that of Homeland Security’s already-defunct “ministry of truth” (otherwise known as the Disinformation Governance Board). It was announced but failed to launch. We can only pray the same will be true for this abominable agency intent on violating our rights.
If we want less (gun) violence, then we need a president that doesn't spew hate. To make the USA safer and more peaceful the first thing I'd do would be to replace the current president (and the rest of the administration).
I totally agree that the OGVP is a farce as the Border Czar Kamala
Harris has been. Biden's plan to prevent or minimize gun violence will fail.