Wisconsin Democrats Backpedal on Plans to Confiscate All Modern Firearms


We recently brought you the news about the Wisconsin Democrats’ proposal to ban all modern firearms, including almost every semi-automatic pistol and every modern rifle in existence. But after experiencing some significant pushback against their blatantly idiotic, unconstitutional plan, the Democrats in question have thrown the firearms confiscation party bus into reverse . . .

From MediaTracker.org:

“After receiving feedback from some of our colleagues regarding the circulation of a preliminary draft banning semiautomatic assault weapons, the other authors of the bill and I have determined that we will work with the Legislative Reference Bureau to make some revisions to the draft bill to address some concerns that have been raised,” (Rep. Lisa) Subeck wrote. Specifically, she and the other advocates of the proposal, Representatives Chris Taylor, Terese Berceau, and Melissa Sargent, were concerned about “the potential impact of LRB 3635 on our state’s sporting heritage.”

Translation: “We didn’t expect these redneck yokels to actually pay attention to the political process and never expected such a furious response. We didn’t do a moment’s research before drafting this legislation that would have had a massive impact on the civil rights of our constituents. So now we’re going to go Google the term ‘assault rifle’ and come back in a few days with something else that doesn’t appear so radical and obscures our gun-grabbing agenda.”

As always, the forces who fight for civilian disarmament seem to want to propose broad legislation ostensibly intended to “stop gun violence” without even a basic understanding of the problem at hand. They purport to understand the causes and solutions to “gun violence,” while proposing legislative “fixes” that ban firearms based on how scary they appear to be rather than on any practical effect. It’s basically the same thing that would happen if my stoner teenage cousin tried to write legislation regulating the banking industry.

Keep your powder dry and your eyes and ears open.


  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Doesn’t sound like a white flag to me; it sounds more like: “we’re going back to the drawing board, so we can better wordsmith the same intent.”

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Along with “We’ll wait until the next shooting so we can try to force-through the modified version of this law with emotion vs. facts and logic.”

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        More of a tactical retreat to regroup and retool, there are lots of tools and Fudds working for them. Do they really believe that citizens will actually obey this kind blatant attempt to circumvent the Constitution? Even the normally beaten into obedience citizens of New York State have started to say, I will not comply!

    2. avatar CTstooge says:

      They never quit.

      As bad as this was, I bet half the Fudds in WI were oblivious.

    3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      My thoughts as well. They want to do a little wordsmithing to come up with the correct newspeak that the proles won’t understand. Those silly bastards thinking they have a right to question the great and powerful ruling class.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        As I understand it, the problem was even the lawyers couldn’t understand it in the original form. The proponents’ intent remains the same: ban scary guns and handguns. They are just going back to the drawing board.

      2. avatar CRF says:

        I think there should be a federal law that mandates am that all laws must be understandable at a 12th grade reading level. This cuts down on lawyers and allows everyone to fully participate in the democratic process.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Let all the people say “AMEN!”

        2. avatar Al M. says:

          From your lips to God’s ear! The Socialist/Democratic party of the USA will NEVER allow this to come to pass. Heck, since most of the GOP are lawyers, they might not entertain the very thought.

    4. avatar John says:

      Exactly! Not a white flag at all. Just a reluctant acknowledgement that the language of the bill did not include sufficient obfuscation. They’ll be back.

      1. avatar N64456 says:

        They’ll be back after Subeck finishes at Western Sizzlin’s “all you can eat” buffet……..

        1. avatar JSJ says:

          She’s a democrat. It’s Golden Corral.

    5. avatar What The Heck Is That says:

      Bingo. This will be back. The words will be changed so as to include SLIGHTLY fewer firearms (but still a wide swath of them) and it will be reintroduced.

      I’m willing to bet they threw this out there to see just how much crap they could get past the radar. Now that the super-extreme option has been tried, they’ll run a slightly less extreme version in in the hopes people will say “OK, now THAT is much better, we can deal with this” when in reality the new bill is just as bad as the old one.

  2. avatar Joe R. says:

    They’re not surrendering, they are falling back and re-grouping.

    1. avatar Jim Jones says:

      This is ALL for show. We have a republican assembly, senate, and governor. It never had any chance of passing. On top of that, this is a state where unionized democrats hunt deer in droves during the thanksgiving week every year. Guns get passed down through the generations. We sell almost 700,000 gun hunting licenses each year, and we have just a bit over 5 million folks living in this state. This is not NY, CA, or CT.

      1. avatar JSJ says:

        And over a quarter-million concealed carry permits issued in the last 4 years. (open carry requires no permit)
        That bill isn’t going anywhere.

        1. avatar Corey says:

          I have plenty of Democrat friends, and even they think its ridiculous. They are also gun owners.

          This is not a state where 80% of the population lives in a urban area like NY or CA that are easily swayed by slick double talk and sensationalism.

  3. avatar n64456 says:

    They are definitely NOT surrendering, only in retreat. Perfectly legal targets…….. Keep up the fire ladies and gentlemen!!!

  4. avatar bontai Joe says:

    Their opponents need to BLAST the whole state with the message that these clowns are all for confiscation, and are only back peddling to appear less fanatical in their plans for guns in the future. There is absolutely no way that this should be allowed to pass unnoticed.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Yep, keep the spotlight on them, and preserve copies of their original “proposal” so you can point to it as what they REALLY want.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Here is a link to the original draft bill. Make and keep a copy of it, and make sure that you note that it has NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE; if you owned a gun that was made illegal by this bill, the only way to avoid jail would be to turn it in to the authorities.


        1. avatar dlj95118 says:

          …so under this bill, my 10/22 with detachable magazine and threaded barrel would be classed as an “assault rifle”.
          Looks like this bill is a version of California’s “assault rifle” ban from a few years ago.

        2. avatar Removed_californian says:

          Still in effect, we just had to get creative.

          .22s are exempt from mag detachability laws.

  5. avatar dh34 says:

    As Gilda Radner from 70s SNL would say…Nevermind.

  6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Is there an official definition of the term ‘modern firearm’? I think the ATF definition is anything that takes a cartridge and was manufactured after 1899 (paraphrasing). So revolvers are ‘modern firearms’, right? Or is it just semi-autos?

    1. avatar John L. says:

      The proposed legislation would also take out a number of revolvers via the “shrouded barrel” clause.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Ah yes, the shoulder thing that goes up!

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        Re “taking out revolvers”: In the interest of accuracy–that is not correct. The legislation specifically referenced “semiautomatic pistols” in regard to that “barrel shroud” biz; they were obviously aiming at those AR and AK-type “pistols”.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          But you can get rid of ALL the AK and Ar15 pistols, just repeal the NFA SBR law.

        2. avatar Removed_californian says:

          Hand guard = bbl shroud?

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          @ Removed _Californian: The problem was, even a slide and dust cover could be interpreted as a “barrel shroud” under the stupid proposed law.

  7. avatar John L. says:

    “It’s basically the same thing that would happen if my stoner teenage cousin tried to write legislation regulating the banking industry.”

    If anything, I suspect your cousin’s version would be clearer, more coherent, have a lower cost of compliance, and generally make more overall sense.

  8. avatar BobS says:

    They basically used the standard Brady Bunch / CSGV / ARS / Demanding Moms shopping list, but they misread a few of the fine points like feature counts, etc.

    As drafted, this list would just expand the market for Kalifornia’s bullet button manufacturers.

  9. avatar pres stone says:

    Nick: a little problem with how you worded your “translation”

    “We didn’t expect these redneck yokels to actually pay attention…”
    So you are saying all gun owners ARE rednecks?? what you should have said they said was “well i guess all gun owners AREN’T the redneck yokels we thought they were”. were your statement seems to insinuate that YOU actually think all gun owners are rednecks. thats the way it came across to me anyways.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      He’s using the term that the state legislators probably would use to describe Wisconsin gun owners.

    2. avatar dh34 says:

      I believe he was insinuating that is how the anti’s and their pet lawmakers view gun owners. Not his personal viewpoint.

    3. avatar LongPurple says:

      I resent the use of the racist, stereotypical term “redneck”. It is hurtful and emotionally upsetting to me, and only a callous person who has no regard for the feelings of others would use such hateful speech.
      If you must categorize people by reference to their race, region of birth, and agricultural background, then please use the more socially acceptable term of “rural Southern White person”, or RSWP. Just think of them as the poor cousins of the WASPs. 😉

      1. avatar JD says:

        I’m originally a Ky hillbilly but prefer Appalachian American.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I resent the use of the racist, stereotypical term “redneck”. It is hurtful and emotionally upsetting to me, and only a callous person who has no regard for the feelings of others would use such hateful speech.”

        How about if Nick and his TTAG ‘Masters’ were to profusely apologize to you and offer you 5,000 rounds of 5.56 as ‘reparations’?

        Seems fair to me… 🙂

        1. avatar Ray says:

          If it’s Lake City ammo,it’s a deal.

      3. avatar NineShooter says:

        I lived in the deep south for 4 years (courtesy Uncle Sam). I never got tired of hearing those cute little southern girls asking me about my “funny accent” (northerner by birth).

        One day, after a long afternoon of playing “Who can blow the biggest hole in the muddy creek bank with a magnum revolver” with a few local guys, they decided to bestow upon me the title of honorary Redneck (best they could do, with me being born north of the Mason-Dixon line and all).

        Proudest day of my life (up to that point; it got better, later).

  10. avatar Redneck says:

    Awe….I was so looking forward to taking some vacation time and going to Wisconsin for some target practice. Maybe next time.

  11. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “Specifically, she and the other advocates of the proposal were concerned about ‘the potential impact of LRB 3635 on our state’s sporting heritage chances of being re-elected.'”

    Fixed it for you.

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      When you call the right to self defense – “sporting heritage” it sure doesn’t sound like you think it is very important.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Kinda like Bill Clinton’s “we have a national consensus that people have the right to keep guns for hunting”. Not a “constitutional right”, not a “right”, just a for-the-time-being “national consensus” that only applies to “guns for hunting”. All you pro-gun Dems out there who plan to vote for Hillary! need to remember that…

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        If I have to use my gun for self defense, I have no intention whatsoever to be sporting about it.

      3. avatar William Burke says:

        No, it doesn’t. I prefer anything like “Jeffersonian birthright”.

  12. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin) says:

    Wisconsin is one of the most tooled up states in the Nation. Many of them are Fudds but even a Fudd can figure out that they are coming after their guns as well. They may be planning to wordsmith the bill and “push it through” after the next shooting but that is quite unrealistic. In Wisconsin, each shooting sends more people to their local gun store. Besides they don’t have the votes to pull this off and they didn’t have the votes even when the Democrats controlled the legislature. Remember it was Democratic governor who vetoed the first conceal carry law passed by a Democratic majority legislature.
    You have to look at where these legislators are from. Cocooned districts in Madison or party line districts in Milwaukee. The rest of the state regardless of party is very gun friendly. You see a lot of hunting camo walking around U-W’s other campuses including the faculty. What we see here is local members of the hive taking their cue from Hillary and Obama. Being incapable of independent thought they ignore or rationalize away the electoral defeats of gun control politicians.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “…even a Fudd can figure out that they are coming after their guns as well.”

      And yet so few ever actually do figure it out. Until it’s too late.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Correct; the FUDDs are no allies of ours.

        1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin) says:

          Well Billy, then make them our allies instead of driving them away.

  13. avatar ThomasR says:

    Geez people! Settle down! , Obama and all of his minions have repeatedly said they are not out to take our guns.

    We are just not edjumakated enuf to understand this bill really isn’t about taking away our second amendment rights.

  14. avatar Roy says:

    Because the 2nd Amendment is TOTALLY ABOUT HUNTING.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      No, no, no. The 2 A is about the right of the militia to have guns, at least whenever they are engaged in “militia duties” according to Justice Stevens. The militia is a kind of army, so they need guns and the Constitution has to protect their right.
      Funny thing is, there is no place in the Constitution where those armies that Congress is authorized to raise has any right to “keep and bear Arms”. It is assumed, and rightly so, that an army will be armed.
      Strange how that type of army called a militia has to have an amendment to the Constitution to assure it can be armed, but all types of armies — militia or “regulars”, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — consist of armed troops.
      They are “armed forces”.
      They carry guns.
      That’s what they do.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        The militia is an agency of the government and it gets duly mentioned in the main body of th Constitution,. (Article I, Section 8 Paragraphs 15 and 16) the Bill of Rights explicitly addresses the rights of the people and in the 10th, the states.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          No, the militia is NOT “an agency of the government”, it is an agency of the people upon which the government is given some authority to call under specified circumstances.

          The Framers of the Constitution understood that not all governing authority should be given to the government. Consider the jury: it is the people directly exercising authority over government. “Trial by jury” meant that the jury was in charge; it could not only decide not to apply a law if they decided it was unjust in a particular case, but could declare that the law itself was unjust and let the person go. It has the authority to act for the government, or against the government, within its realm. The militia is similar: it belongs to the people, and though it is an instrument for governing, it is not an element of the government. It may be used for the government, or against the government. Under the militia system the Framers knew, not even the state was the final authority over the militia, the local government ranked higher than the state.

          We have lost the full concept of checks and balances, regarding it these days as different parts of government keeping watch on each other, but it originally included non-governmental structures that could limit the government. The militia is the ultimate non-governmental limitation on government, as it has the authority of the right of insurrection.

        2. avatar LongPurple says:

          ” The Bill of Rights explicitly addresses the rights of the people and in the 10th, the states.”
          Exactly. How is it it that anyone can claim it takes an explicit amendment to the Constitution to assure that members of one type of army (the militia) have the right to keep and bear arms while it is (rightfully) implicitly assumed for all other “armed forces” that those troops will be armed. As the 2nd A. states, it is concerned with the right of the PEOPLE, not the MILITIA.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          Nonononono! The Founding Fathers were very specific that “militia” means “the whole of the people”.

        4. avatar LongPurple says:

          Yes, figuratively, “the whole of the people” as opposed to the idea of “select militia”, who would theoretically absorb the burden of military training and free the rest of “the people” to pursue their civilian occupations without the annoyance of militia duty.
          I assume the Founders considered women and children as “people”, but they were not included in the definition of the “enrolled” (conscripted) militia in the Militia Act of 1792. That militia was composed of “every free able-bodied white male citizen” between 18-45 years of age.

  15. avatar Custodian says:

    Yeah, sounds more like a tactical retreat than a surrender. Democrats, liberals, progressives, marxists, fascists, socialists, never surrender.

    And neither should we, the citizens!

  16. avatar Aaron says:

    I’m still waiting for the magical “common sense” gun law proposed in the aftermath of a tragedy that would have had any imoact in the tragedy.

    Instead, they all go like this: “some angry gay black reporter shot two white people with a handgun, so, uh, let’s ban ‘assault rifles'”


    “some gangbanger with felony convictions who can’t legally buy a gun shot and killed somebody in a ‘gun free’ zone, so, uh, let’s make it impossible for law abiding citizens to get a CCW permit”.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Deciding to take away guns to solve improper gun use is like deciding to remove a person’s skin to stop a skin infection: while it may work in theory, in practice you end up killing the victim.

      It’s a psychological phenomenon one of my chemistry professors once commented on: without a scientific approach, the human tendency is to look at the ‘common apparent element’ and try to eliminate it. That was a good reaction when our ancestors first came down from the trees and had a scary world to deal with; the common apparent element tended to be the actual dangerous element. People who never deal with the hard sciences tend to fall back on that primitive reaction rather than live up to the species name and be thinking hominids.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    I think the Wisconsin anti-gun progressives have become a bit mentally constipated due to eating all that cheese.

  18. avatar BDub says:

    Not one damn cheese slice! (Wisconsin for, not one damn inch!)

  19. avatar Mark N. says:

    What is that law, something about never ascribing to malice that which is equally explicable by stupidity? The bill reads to me like some contracts I’ve reviewed drafted by non-lawyers, where clauses are added from other contracts “because they sound good,” and they end up with a perfect muddle. I don’t think these ladies are sophisticated enough about the subject matter to have nay understanding of what they put together, but instead just picked provisions used in one context in another state and stuffed it into their proposed legislation. They were likely told by their colleagues that the bill was such a mess that it had zero chance of making it out of committee, even without addressing the political realities of gun control bills in Wisconsin.

  20. avatar Jack Clancy says:

    Make sure they stop by my home to pick up mine also.

    Molon labe

  21. avatar arsh says:

    Can someone just pass one of these bills and attempt to enforce it so we can get the party started already?

    1. avatar Jack Clancy says:

      Let’s give them what they are pushing for…..a revolution. 350 million shots heard around the world.

      I’m amazed at their stupidity. How are unarmed jackass’s going to disarm an armed population? What, say Simon Says.

      F them, and I mean F them!

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        BANG! BLAMMO!! Pewpewpewpewpew!!!!

  22. avatar jrod says:

    A bunch of hoplophobic uneducated law makers. What puzzles me the most is how these goons think they can actually eliminate crime by passing new laws. I can simplify it for everyone. Lets just make a single new law, “It is illegal to do anything bad ever”. Now lets see it get enforced. This is their logic of real life and how things actually are supposed to happen. There have been crimes before guns were ever invented. Where the hell do these dumb $#!+$ come from?

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Magical thinking abounds.

      These are people who have to be eliminated if the race is to progress: magic doesn’t work, even if you call it “law”.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      I refuse to believe they actually think that. It’s just magical thinking, as someone else said.

  23. avatar Rimfire says:

    Time for Sherriff Clarke to pay her a visit and explain how things are in the real world.

  24. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Simple words….shall not be infringed. ANY attempt to change the meaning will be met with furious anger.

  25. avatar DBM says:

    This idiot doesnt understand that if they try t actually start confiscating gun there really will be some gun violence.

    Whats the bet both ammo and gun sales are going through the roof there.

  26. avatar Kap says:

    we should make a citizens arrest on these politicians for treason, Sedition and being born! Democrats can’t do anything except manufacture false problem the feed those lies through the Lefty Media, Sorta like the Cu*t running for prez, bets Obama pardons her

  27. avatar Vince says:

    Technically, I mean in the strictest sense, isn’t a DA revolver a Semi-automatic weapon?
    One pull of the trigger, one round fired…
    So all DA revolvers will be ???

    1. avatar Vince says:

      BTW, I own a S&W Highway Patrolman. (N model)

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email