Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Vos Says He May Support Draconian Gun Control…

Opinion

double-speak from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos
As a follow-up to my note below, take a look at this double-speak from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos: Note how we can't seem to get a straight answer from Vos about his position on red-flag gun laws. State politicians like Vos will simply claim that red-flag gun laws don't infringe your rights. It's a shell game that allows Republicans to speak out of both sides of their mouth by claiming it's not gun control.

Wisconsin – -(AmmoLand.com)- Red-flag gun control is on the march in Wisconsin. They’re calling it “gun control that even conservatives can support.”

As I mentioned in my last alert, the idea behind these dangerous gun laws is that someone reports you, or “red flags” you to the government. A secret court (that you are not allowed to attend or have legal representation at) decides if you’re a “threat” and issues a gun confiscation order.

Just like that your gun rights are gone … no due process, no presumption of innocence, no legal defense.

Knock, knock. The police show up.

And they’re on high alert.

It’s a perfect recipe to get gunned down (it’s already happening).

All it takes is for a nosy neighbor or disgruntled ex-spouse to call you in. Even if someone completely lies about you, there’s no due process for you to refute the allegations.

It’s what life must’ve been like with the snitches and secret police of East Germany.

Now, 12 states have already passed red-flag gun laws and Wisconsin will be taking up the issue this session.

Both Governor Tony Evers (D) and Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul want to give secret judges unlimited power to arbitrarily disarm Wisconsinites they deem to be “dangerous.”

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos
Notorious compromiser Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) has now expressed support for the gun control bill.

And state Republicans are fixing to join them, to sell you out.

According to Wisconsin Public Radio, “Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, said Assembly Democrats ‘absolutely’ plan to introduce a red flag bill this session. He said he hopes the plan can be a bipartisan one.”

And that’s exactly what’s happening:

“Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, has expressed a similar outlook, saying he could be open to supporting a red flag law, but that it would need to be limited in scope.”

Limited in scope? Who do you suppose will decide that?

This is very serious. I need to know if you’ll stand with me and WGO to OPPOSE red-flag gun laws in Wisconsin.

It is obvious that Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) will be the sole voice opposing this so-called “bipartisan” gun grab bill without compromise.

Corey Graff
Executive Director

P.S.- Wisconsin legislators are being pressured to introduce so-called red-flag gun laws. If passed, an ex-spouse could simply call the authorities to report you, and you lose your guns.

Notorious compromiser Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) has now expressed support for the gun control bill.

Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc.
PO Box 329
Waupaca, WI 54981


Wisconsin Gun Owners

About Wisconsin Gun Owners:

WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they're “pro-gun” – all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians – but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control – regardless of the political party – and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

  • 29 thoughts on “Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Vos Says He May Support Draconian Gun Control…

      1. @Coelacanth And that explains the dozen states that have already passed this tyranny exactly how? How about the fact that Congress failed to send a bill to the President’s desk so he could sign into law National Reciprocity even though that is already “guaranteed” by the Second Amendment?

    1. Sure would be nice if you had a filter on this forum to weed out the garbage messages and allow people who are interested in discussing the subject a place to do so.

      1. So true sir – weed out those as well that write a book and those that post the same exact post, word for word, under different names

    2. 2nd admendment purists have blood on their hands. Racists traitor assholes. Waiting for the race war to try to hide their shame of having small cocks. Cucked by their assault rifles!

      1. I WAS going to accuse you of projecting, but then I remembered all those Republicans rioting in the streets and burning cars.

        You have logical fallacies in your accusations.
        You don’t know the definition of treason.
        The “Race War” you are talking about is likely to be brought about by the actions of the Progressives, not the Conservatives.
        The President hasn’t asked any civilians to kill for him.
        Your lack of testosterone is likely to cause you to be deficient compared to normal males, not the other way around.
        You have no idea what an assault weapon is and have certainly never been trained to use one.
        You can’t spell, the company is called, Rainier Arms, and they don’t “supports mass murder and genocide.”
        Good guys with guns, by definition, stop violence, they don’t cause it.
        Take your meds and go back to playing Halo II.

        1. Good guy with a gun is the next murderer. What are you an incel or something? Cuck! You will murder for trump when he asks you, my guess you have the mosques and Mexican restaurants already scouted out.

          1. Let me see if I have this right. You’re accusing me of following the Constitution. Not even the original version of the 2A, but the watered down version that the Hamiltonians made it before it was signed. Guilty as charged. If you don’t follow the Constitution, not just the parts you like, you might want to think about what that defines YOU as. You’re also defined by the Oath you didn’t take.

            Blah, blah blah. Ignore any points made and continue ad hominem attacks. You are a noisy fool and nothing more.

        2. @Dave in Fairfax, This one is just writing outrageous nonsense to annoy normal people and get “responses”. I wonder what a Second Amendment purist might be? Sounds like someone that is knowledgeable.

          1. @WB, Seems to me that you can be a Constitutional Purist or an activist/revisionist. I’d be proud to be considered a Purist/Originalist. Since the Constitutional Rights are God-given, not Government-granted, I don’t see any other “Commonsense” stand to take.

            1. @DiF, I have to agree with you, but then what is Clody talking about? One would think that when the Tides Foundation hired low entry level propagandists, it would pick someone with at least a basic knowledge of the English language.

    3. White nationalist Terrorism. Rainer Arms supports mass murder and genocide.

      Good guy with a gun is next mass murderer.

      1. I’m tired of hearing “White nationalist Terrorism.” There hasn’t been any. Lots of Leftist terrorism though. Since it’s always the Left that brings up race, that makes them the racists.
        NO Good Guy with a Gun has ever been a mass murderer. They have all been Left-Wing nut jobs, many of whom stole the weapons used in their crimes. Your accusation against the gun dealer needs to be substantiated, and spell-checked.

      2. You recite the mantra faithfully and ignore reality. Poor boy(?), when has a mass murder been stopped other than by suicide or a “good guy with a gun”?
        Are you aware that the great majority of defensive gun (DGU) uses do not even require firing a shot? Are you aware that those involved in “research” on the subject of DGU slant their statistical analysis to avoid admitting that there is a place for responsible armed citizens in our society? https://capitalresearch.org/article/why-is-the-cdc-hiding-its-defensive-gun-use-statistics/
        Even the CDC admits that the victim of an attack is much less likely to be killed or suffer injury if that victim is armed.
        https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

        Your slanderous attacks and references to sexual inadequacy and perversion only underscore the fallacy of your position. You have no honest argument.

      3. Dude, take another xanax, bend way over, stick your nose in your butthole, and breathe deep and smother yourself. You’re nothing but a troll looking to get off by pissing off a bunch of Constitutionalists. I believe you’d be better off attacking that female pos kotex from new york. You’re both equal mentally!

    4. I believe these laws will be struck down without hesitation. the Supreme Court ruled that before the government can confiscate or infringe upon property, owners are entitled to a defense. They’re entitled to lawyers, to cross-examine and to avail themselves of other procedural benefits. In 1969, the Supreme Court held that even freezing property (much less removing it) without a prior hearing violates due process.

      Courts rarely grant protective orders without notice and require a requester to show an immediate emergency. Specifically, petitioners must prove they’re in imminent danger and a protective order is the only remedy. Allegations are not enough. Petitioners must prove a “clear and convincing evidence of imminent harm.” Further, a petitioner may have to post a bond to protect the defendant against damage in case their accusations prove false or exaggerated.

      Orders without notice typically last only a few days and usually change nothing. Most of these orders simply protect the status quo, e.g., restrain the defendant from harassing the petitioner before a hearing or from hiding or destroying assets that might be used to pay a debt. In 1969, the Supreme Court held that even freezing property (much less removing it) without a prior hearing violates due process.

      1. I tend to agree, @Gene Ralno. It will just take time (and likely more lives in the process) for a challenge to work through the courts.

    5. The U. S. Constitution provides: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”

    Leave a Comment 29 Comments

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