Jeffrey "Jeff" D. Walter
U.S. House, District 11
““Navy Master Chief, Mayor, and business leader bringing proven leadership, common sense, and accountability to Congress.””
Your Choice This November
Vote Republican — defend the Constitution
Illinois gun owners should be deeply concerned about Bill Foster — an eleven-year incumbent Democrat who has voted for and cosponsored virtually every major federal gun-control push to come through the U.S. House. He cosponsored and voted YES on H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, cosponsored the 2015 version (H.R. 4269), and repeatedly voted for the H.R. 8 'universal background check' scheme that would federally regulate private firearm transfers. On his own campaign website, Foster brags that he supports 'a ban on assault weapons' and red-flag 'gun violence restraining orders' — the very tools used to strip Americans of their firearms without a criminal conviction. Beyond the Second Amendment, Foster has voted to override state pro-life laws, cosponsored the Equality Act's threat to religious conscience, and personally introduced legislation to develop a federal Central Bank Digital Currency — a mechanism gun-rights advocates warn could be weaponized to track and restrict lawful firearm and ammunition purchases.
- Second Amendment: Foster's anti-gun record is extensive and self-documented. He cosponsored H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 (cosponsored 3/11/2021), and voted YES on final passage 7/29/2022 (Roll Call 410, 217-213), issuing a press release proudly declaring he voted 'to prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity magazines.' He also cosponsored H.R. 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. He voted YES on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, in both 2019 and 2021, and YES on H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act (3/11/2021), which imposes federal controls on private transfers. On his campaign site, Foster explicitly states, 'I support a ban on assault weapons' and endorses the 'e-Gun Violence Restraining Order Act' — a federal red-flag scheme. He was a cosponsor of H.R. 1565, the 2013 Manchin-Toomey background-check expansion. Gun owners should treat this record as a near-perfect anti-Second-Amendment scorecard.
- First Amendment: Foster voted YES on H.R. 5, the Equality Act (2/25/2021), and calls himself an 'original co-sponsor' — legislation that religious liberty advocates warn would override the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and compel churches, schools, and faith-based charities to violate their conscience. He also voted for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act (9/24/2021), which would strip states like Illinois of any ability to protect the unborn and force health-care providers to participate in abortion regardless of religious objection. Vote Smart records him at 100% from Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Foster was among Illinois Democrats who voted to allow federal taxpayer funding of abortion, overriding the conscience protections of the Hyde Amendment.
- Fourth Amendment: Foster is the lead House sponsor pushing a federal Central Bank Digital Currency — he introduced H.R. 2211, the Central Bank Digital Currency Study Act, in March 2021, directing the Federal Reserve to develop 'feasible models' for a programmable digital dollar. Privacy advocates across the political spectrum warn a CBDC would give the federal government unprecedented real-time surveillance of every transaction — including firearms and ammunition purchases. Foster has also repeatedly offered floor amendments (H.Amdt.286 and H.Amdt.871 in the 116th Congress) to STRIKE the longstanding congressional ban on HHS creating a national unique patient identifier — a federal medical tracking number Americans have blocked since 1998 precisely because of privacy concerns.
- Fifth Amendment: Foster openly advertises on his campaign site that he supports the 'e-Gun Violence Restraining Order Act,' a federal red-flag / ERPO scheme that allows firearms to be confiscated based on a civil petition — often ex parte, before the accused has any chance to appear in court or confront the accuser. Due-process advocates have consistently warned such orders invert the presumption of innocence and deprive Americans of a constitutional right without the criminal-trial protections the Fifth Amendment demands.
- Tenth Amendment: Foster's entire gun-control agenda is built on federal preemption of Illinois and every other state's authority: a federal assault-weapons ban (H.R. 1808), a federal universal-background-check mandate reaching private in-state transfers (H.R. 8), and a federal red-flag law. He also voted for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, explicitly designed to override state abortion laws — and voted for H.R. 5, the Equality Act, which he praised for creating 'a nationwide standard' overriding state law. Foster's own statement on the Equality Act — celebrating protections 'no matter what state they live in' — is a candid admission that he views the Tenth Amendment as an obstacle, not a limit.
Why We Vetted Jeffrey "Jeff" D. Walter
- Backs full repeal of PICA and rejects bans on commonly owned firearms
- Supports constitutional carry and repealing the FOID card permission slip
- Opposes magazine limits, waiting periods, ammo taxes, and any firearm registry
- Said no to FLOC cameras as mayor; opposes warrantless surveillance and civil asset forfeiture
- 22-year Navy veteran who treats his constitutional oath as binding, not ceremonial
The Scorecard
Second Amendment
10/10Jeffrey's answer
“I support repealing Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) because it restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens while doing too little to address the criminals who drive violent crime. We can protect public safety without banning commonly owned firearms from responsible citizens. I support enforcing existing laws, keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, strengthening mental-health resources, and protecting the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I support repealing Illinois’ FOID card requirement because law-abiding citizens should not need a state-issued permission card simply to exercise a constitutional right. We can keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited and dangerous individuals through existing federal background-check laws while respecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible Illinoisans.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose expanding red flag laws without strong due-process protections because constitutional rights should not be taken away without meaningful notice, credible evidence, and prompt judicial review. We should act when someone poses a genuine threat, but public safety and due process must work together, not at the expense of one another.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose Illinois’ SAFE-T Act because it has imposed significant new mandates and costs on local governments while limiting the flexibility of police and prosecutors to protect their communities. As a mayor, I have seen firsthand how state mandates can strain municipal budgets, increase administrative burdens, and divert limited public-safety resources away from core policing. Criminal justice reform should protect individual rights while giving local law enforcement the tools and resources necessary to keep our communities safe.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I support constitutional carry because law-abiding citizens should not need government permission to exercise a constitutional right. Individuals who may legally possess a firearm should be able to carry it for lawful purposes, while those prohibited from possessing firearms remain subject to existing laws and penalties.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose arbitrary magazine-capacity limits because they restrict law-abiding gun owners without addressing the criminals who ignore firearms laws. Public-safety policy should focus on violent offenders and the illegal use of firearms rather than limiting commonly owned equipment used by responsible citizens for lawful purposes.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose overly broad “sensitive place” restrictions that effectively prevent law-abiding concealed-carry licensees from exercising their Second Amendment rights across large portions of everyday public life. Restrictions should be limited to locations where there is a clear and compelling public safety justification, while respecting both constitutional rights and legitimate private property rights.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose using excessive licensing requirements, taxes, insurance mandates, or liability laws as backdoor tools to regulate lawful businesses out of existence. Whether the target is a firearms dealer or any other legitimate business, government should establish reasonable public-safety standards and enforce the law fairly, not impose burdens designed to make lawful commerce financially or operationally impossible.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose new taxes on ammunition, ammunition serialization, and point-of-sale registration of ammunition buyers. These measures burden law-abiding citizens, raise costs, and create additional government tracking and bureaucracy without effectively targeting violent criminals. This is a prime example of government overreach! Public safety should focus on those who misuse firearms, not impose unnecessary restrictions on responsible citizens.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose arbitrary waiting periods, one-gun-a-month restrictions, and similar mandates that delay or limit lawful firearm purchases. Once an individual has passed the required background check and is legally eligible to own a firearm, government should not impose additional barriers simply to delay the exercise of a constitutional right. Public safety efforts should focus on criminals and prohibited purchasers, not responsible gun owners.”
Why this score: We score Walter a perfect 10 on the Second Amendment because his platform aligns fully with a constitutional-originalist reading of the right to keep and bear arms — opposing PICA's gun and magazine bans and registry, backing FOID repeal and constitutional carry, rejecting red flag confiscation schemes, and standing against the SAFE-T Act's soft-on-crime fallout. Absent any record to the contrary, we grade him as a reliable pro-Second Amendment vote against new taxes, waiting periods, "sensitive places" carry restrictions, and burdensome dealer and ammunition regulations.
First Amendment
10/10Jeffrey's answer
“I will vigorously defend the First Amendment and the right of every American to speak freely, even when that speech is unpopular or challenges those in power. I oppose government efforts to pressure social media platforms, financial institutions, employers, or other private organizations into censoring or penalizing lawful political or personal expression. Government should never use its power to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I will defend the free exercise of religion and the conscience rights of every American. Government should not force individuals, religious organizations, or faith based institutions to violate their sincerely held beliefs as a condition of participating in public life. Religious liberty is a fundamental constitutional right, and government must respect it while protecting the rights of all Americans.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose efforts by government to pressure banks, payment processors, online platforms, or other corporations to “debank,” deplatform, or demonetize lawful businesses, organizations, or individuals because of political pressure or disfavored viewpoints. This principle extends beyond the Second Amendment community to every lawful industry. Access to essential financial and commercial services should be based on legitimate business and risk considerations, not used as a backdoor means of punishing lawful activity or suppressing constitutionally protected expression.”
Jeffrey's answer
“This is just plain ridiculous. Of course I oppose forcing gun stores or firearm owners to post, fund, or distribute government scripted anti-gun messaging as a condition of doing business or exercising a constitutional right. Government should provide accurate public safety information when appropriate, but it should not compel citizens or lawful businesses to become messengers for a political viewpoint they do not share. The First and Second Amendments deserve meaningful protection from this kind of government overreach.”
Why this score: We score Jeff Walter a perfect 10/10 on the First Amendment because his stated commitments align squarely with a constitutional-originalist reading of free speech, religious liberty, and the right to peaceably assemble — including the right of gun owners to organize and speak without government pressure or platform-driven censorship. Absent any record to the contrary, we credit him as a full-throated defender of speech, conscience, and assembly rights against compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination.
Fourth Amendment
10/10Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose warrantless government surveillance and the mass collection of data on law-abiding Americans including FLOC cameras. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy from unreasonable government intrusion, and advances in technology should not weaken that protection. Except for narrow, constitutionally recognized exceptions, government should obtain a proper warrant based on probable cause before searching your property, communications, or private data. When my Chief of Police asked me about installing FLOC cameras in Elburn, I immediately said no.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose creating a government registry of firearms or law abiding firearm owners. The government has a legitimate role in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited individuals and prosecuting those who use them in crimes, but it does not need a database tracking responsible citizens and their legally owned firearms. Public safety should target criminal conduct, not create unnecessary government surveillance of Americans exercising a constitutional right.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I strongly oppose special credit card merchant codes or other financial tracking systems designed to monitor lawful purchases of firearms and ammunition. Americans should not be placed under additional financial surveillance simply because they exercise a constitutional right. Fraud and criminal activity should be investigated based on legitimate evidence, not by creating systems that single out lawful businesses and responsible citizens for special scrutiny.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose warrantless government inspections of gun owners’ homes for “safe storage” or regulatory compliance. The Fourth Amendment does not disappear simply because someone lawfully owns a firearm. Except for established constitutional exceptions, government should need a warrant based on probable cause before entering or searching an American’s home, period.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose using license plate readers, overly broad geofence warrants, or purchased location data to track law abiding Americans simply because they visit gun stores, shooting ranges, gun shows, or other lawful businesses and organizations. Exercising a constitutional right should never make someone a target for government surveillance. Investigations should be based on individualized suspicion, due process, and proper judicial oversight, not mass tracking of innocent citizens.”
Why this score: We award Jeffrey "Jeff" D. Walter a perfect 10/10 on Fourth Amendment protections, reflecting the standard we set for candidates who reject warrantless surveillance, oppose firearm registries and databases, refuse financial tracking of gun buyers, and stand against warrantless storage inspections or monitoring at gun venues. Absent any record to the contrary, we score him as fully aligned with the constitutional-originalist position that privacy and probable-cause requirements are non-negotiable.
Fifth Amendment
10/10Jeffrey's answer
“I support strong due process protections and oppose civil asset forfeiture practices that allow government to permanently take a person’s property without a criminal conviction. Americans should not have to prove their innocence simply to recover their own money or property. Government must bear the burden of proving wrongdoing, and property rights should receive the same meaningful constitutional protections as our other fundamental rights.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose confiscating firearms without meaningful due process. No American should permanently lose a constitutional right or lawfully owned property without notice, credible evidence, and a fair and timely hearing before an impartial court. When an immediate and demonstrable threat requires emergency action, strong safeguards and prompt judicial review must ensure that public safety is protected without sacrificing constitutional rights.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I support a clear process for restoring Second Amendment rights to people who have completed their sentences, demonstrated rehabilitation, and no longer pose a danger to society. When someone has served their sentence, many fundamental rights and liberties are restored—they can work, own property, speak freely, practice their religion, and enjoy Fourth Amendment protections. Voting rights are also restored after incarceration in many states, including Illinois, although rules vary by state. Some restrictions, such as serving on a jury or holding certain public offices, may continue depending on the jurisdiction and conviction. A lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights should not be automatic or irreversible. There should be a fair, individualized process for restoring those rights while keeping firearms away from people who remain demonstrably dangerous.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I oppose laws that retroactively turn lawfully purchased firearms, magazines, or other property into contraband. Americans who followed the law when they purchased an item should not later be treated like criminals or forced to surrender or destroy their property because the government changed the rules. This is about more than the Second Amendment, it is about due process, property rights, and the fundamental principle that government should not punish citizens retroactively for conduct that was lawful when it occurred.”
Why this score: We score Jeff Walter a perfect 10 on the Fifth Amendment because a constitutional-originalist standard demands full due process protections against civil asset forfeiture, gun seizure without a hearing, and uncompensated takings — and a candidate earning this mark stands firmly on that ground. Absent any record to the contrary, we credit him with the strongest posture for property rights, due process before any deprivation of liberty or arms, and restoration of Second Amendment rights once due process is satisfied.
Tenth Amendment
10/10Jeffrey's answer
“I support the Tenth Amendment and the constitutional limits on federal power. Federal agencies such as the ATF should enforce the laws Congress passes, not create sweeping new restrictions that Congress never enacted. This principle extends far beyond firearms. Americans and businesses should not be subjected to overburdensome administrative regulations that effectively create new law without meaningful legislative authorization or accountability. Major policy decisions belong with elected legislators who must debate them, vote on them publicly, and answer to the people.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I support Second Amendment sanctuary protections that prevent state and local resources from being used to enforce firearm restrictions that are determined to violate the Constitution. State and local officials also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not simply to follow every government mandate without question. These protections should operate within the rule of law and established constitutional processes while ensuring that government at every level respects the Second Amendment.”
Jeffrey's answer
“I support strong statewide firearm preemption because constitutional rights should not change every time a law abiding citizen crosses a municipal boundary. Illinois should not become a patchwork of conflicting local gun restrictions that makes lawful conduct in one community a crime in the next. At the same time, no state or local government should be required to enforce firearm restrictions that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. These positions share the same principle: clear, consistent laws and respect for constitutional rights at every level of government.”
Why this score: We score Jeffrey "Jeff" D. Walter a perfect 10/10 on the Tenth Amendment because his stated commitments align squarely with a constitutional-originalist view of federalism: pushing back on federal gun overreach, defending Second Amendment sanctuary protections, and upholding state firearm preemption against local end-runs. Absent any record to the contrary, we see no daylight between his position and the strongest pro-state-sovereignty stance on the issues covered here.
Constitutional Fidelity & Oath of Office
10/10Jeffrey's answer
“I treat my oath to the Constitution as a binding commitment, not a ceremonial promise. I have already lived that oath throughout 22 years of service in the United States Navy, and I will carry the same commitment to Congress. I will vote against legislation that plainly exceeds constitutional limits, even when it is politically popular or comes from my own party.”
Why this score: We award Jeffrey "Jeff" D. Walter a perfect score on Constitutional Fidelity and Oath of Office because his stated commitments align squarely with an originalist reading of the Constitution and a serious understanding of the oath as a binding duty, not a formality. On this measure, we see no daylight between the candidate's posture and the standard we hold Republican officeholders to: govern within enumerated powers, honor the text, and treat the oath as the job.
Our Take
For more than two decades, Jeff Walter served our country with honor in the U.S. Navy, rising to the highest enlisted rank through hard work, discipline, and proven leadership. That kind of record isn't handed out — it's earned. After retiring from the Navy, he built a successful career in technology and consulting, helping both public and private organizations tackle tough challenges, from AI and data systems to digital transformation.
As Mayor, Jeff has led the charge to modernize infrastructure, support small businesses, strengthen public safety, and deliver for families — all while keeping taxes low and balancing budgets. That's the kind of disciplined, results-driven leadership we like to see from someone who has already worn the uniform and met a payroll.
His business background means he knows how to balance a budget, manage complex operations, and drive innovation. And his academic credentials — a B.S. in Finance from the University of South Florida, an M.S. in Manufacturing Management from the University of Toledo, and an MBA from the New York Institute of Technology — underscore his ability to take on big problems and deliver smart, practical solutions.
Questions & Answers
No questions posted yet. Be the first to ask.
This scorecard reflects the opinions of We The Vetted based on the public record, votes, and candidate statements. It is not a paid endorsement and is not coordinated with any campaign. We accept no payment for inclusion; the donation link points to the candidate's own official campaign.