Republican State Senator Chris Kapenga of Wisconsin has sparked controversy by proposing a gun ban for the general public at the state Capitol, while making clear that lawmakers like himself should still be allowed to carry firearms inside. The proposal, made during an appearance on UpFront with journalist Matt Smith of WISN 12 News, came in response to a recent tragedy in Minnesota, where two lawmakers and their spouses were shot.
“I have not been through another Capitol that has not had metal detectors,” Kapenga said, advocating for heightened security measures, including weapon-detecting systems. While Kapenga insisted that his proposal was about safety, critics immediately called out the double standard, especially given his insistence that lawmakers should remain armed.
Security for Me, Not for Thee
In the interview, Kapenga made a sharp distinction between public visitors and elected officials. “The general public, they don’t need to have their weapons in the people’s house,” he said. “But I need to be protected as a public servant.” His comments struck a nerve with many, who saw the move as elitist and hypocritical.
Kapenga cited Indiana as an example of a conservative state where legislators are allowed to carry firearms, but the public is not. He claimed it was essential that lawmakers protect themselves, especially when standing in the Senate President’s spot. “I always have been armed to protect myself,” he said.
Critics Slam the Proposal on Civic Media
The backlash was swift. Civic Media’s Matenaer on Air co-hosts Jane Matenaer and Greg Bach addressed Kapenga’s comments, criticizing him for promoting a “self-centered double standard.” Matenaer summed it up bluntly: “Security for me, but not for thee.”
Listeners chimed in with frustration. One caller from New London said, “How dare you say you are more valuable than my children.” Another described Kapenga’s logic as “tone deaf.” The hosts reminded their audience that true leadership means protecting everyone, not just politicians. “If you’re going to call yourself the voice of the people, Mr. Kapenga, then actually listen to the people,” Matenaer said.
Tom Grieve and Nick Clark Weigh In
Gun rights attorney Tom Grieve and Wisconsin Carry President Nick Clark took the conversation even further in a recent video posted to YouTube. Grieve, a former state prosecutor, called Kapenga’s proposal “egregious” and “elitist,” especially given his Republican affiliation.
Clark expressed deep disappointment. “We don’t lose our gun rights to Democrats,” he said. “We lose them to Republicans who get squishy.” He accused Kapenga of reinforcing every anti-gun myth and warned that this kind of messaging from a Republican senator only gives more ammo to gun control advocates.
What About the Actual Threat?
One major flaw in Kapenga’s argument, critics say, is the nature of the threat he’s using to justify the ban. The Minnesota shootings he referenced didn’t happen in a government building – they happened in the homes of the legislators involved. Clark pointed out that 75% of defensive shootings occur at home, not in public buildings. “He can’t put metal detectors at the end of his street,” Clark said. “So why pretend this would’ve changed anything?”
The argument raises a good question: If the threat is at home, why ban guns in the Capitol? And if the Capitol has metal detectors and is truly secure, why do lawmakers need to carry at all?
Creating a Political Caste System
One of the most upsetting parts for many is the idea that lawmakers should be allowed special privileges that ordinary people can’t have. “It reeks of elitism,” said Clark, accusing Kapenga of creating a “special class of citizens.” The Capitol is often referred to as “the people’s house,” but Kapenga’s comments have many wondering whether the public is really welcome there anymore.
Even within state buildings, current law (Wis. Stats. sec. 941.235) already restricts open carry, but concealed carry is legal with a license, at least for now. Kapenga’s proposal would cut off that right for the public while preserving it for politicians.
The Logic Doesn’t Hold Up
Critics also poked holes in the logic Kapenga used to back his proposal. If metal detectors make the Capitol secure, why do lawmakers need to carry firearms inside? If lawmakers think they need protection on the way to the building, wouldn’t regular citizens walking through the same streets need it too?
“It’s like saying, ‘Let them eat cake,’” Clark said. “You guys – no guns for you. But we’re the ruling class, we get protection.”
Reinforcing the Wrong Message
Grieve also warned that Kapenga’s plan does damage beyond just the Capitol – it reinforces the dangerous idea that banning guns makes people safer. “According to John Lott’s research, 88% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones,” he said. “Kapenga is helping push that narrative.”
The attorney explained that most mass shooters target places where people are unarmed, because they know there won’t be resistance. By banning guns at the Capitol, Kapenga could actually make the building less safe, not more.
A Hidden Agenda?
Clark and Grieve both suggested that Kapenga had been planning this move for a while. “He had this queued up,” Clark said. “He’d already done the research, already looked at what other states do – he was just waiting for a tragedy to make his move.”
This raises another troubling point: Was the Minnesota shooting being used as a political tool? If so, it’s no wonder why so many voters and commentators are furious.
Where Is the Public’s Role in This?
Many listeners to Civic Media and followers of Grieve’s YouTube channel felt blindsided. A Republican senator, someone supposedly friendly to gun rights, just flipped the script. As Clark put it, “How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you everything you need to know about how they feel about the people.”
Public callers were encouraged to contact their representatives and voice their opposition to Kapenga’s proposal. But for many, the damage was already done.
This Isn’t About Safety – It’s About Trust
At the core of the issue is a simple question: Do lawmakers trust the people who elected them? Clark argues they don’t. “If they thought citizens could be trusted, they wouldn’t be trying to disarm them,” he said. “Freedom comes down to trust. You either trust the people or you don’t.”
When legislators act as though they need protection from the public instead of with the public, it sends a dangerous signal. It implies that lawmakers see themselves as separate and above the people they serve.
A Troubling Shift
It’s easy to see why Kapenga’s proposal hit a nerve. It wasn’t just about metal detectors or the Capitol. It was about something deeper – a growing sense that government is protecting itself while leaving everyone else behind. In trying to keep himself safe, Senator Kapenga may have exposed a belief that everyday citizens are too dangerous, too unpredictable, and too unworthy of the same rights he claims for himself.
That’s what makes this story fascinating. Not just because it’s about guns, but because it’s about trust, fairness, and what it really means to serve the public. And when those things are missing, the rest of the debate becomes a distraction.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.