While the current threat to our gun rights from the federal government is minimal, it was just a couple of years ago when we had to worry about all sorts of things. President Autopen was a big fan of gun control, and if he’d gotten his way, we’d just be left with nothing but double-barreled shotguns to shoot at bad guys through the door.
As a result, some pro-gun states started looking at ways to protect the gun rights of the people who live there. Missouri led the charge, and while that law ran into some judicial issues, the sentiment remains.
Wyoming, however, just passed a law that is essentially the same thing, but with a couple of tweaks, and law enforcement isn’t thrilled with this.
After a lively debate on the Wyoming House floor Thursday, a bill aimed at keeping federal agents from seizing Wyoming residents’ guns passed its final vote.
Having previously passed the Senate, Senate File 101, the Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), passed the House on third reading by a vote 40 to 21.
It must pass concurrence with both chambers before heading to Gov. Mark Gordon’s desk. Gordon vetoed a similar bill during the 2025 legislative session.
If it becomes law, SAPA will forbid Wyoming law enforcement officers from assisting federal agents in seizing residents’ firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories.
It would also allow residents whose guns have been unjustly seized to seek civil damages.
‘Sword Of Damocles’
Law enforcement officials say SAPA would undermine their joint operations with federal agents on drug busts, tracking illegal immigrants and similar cases.
During debate leading up to the vote on Thursday, dissenting lawmakers reiterated law enforcement’s concerns.
Rep. Art Washut, R-Casper, a retired peace officer, said the bill rests on a false premise.
“A false premise that the only way we can keep our Wyoming peace officers from violating your constitutional rights and your next-door neighbor’s constitutional rights is to hang the sword of Damocles over their heads with a $50,000 civil judgment on it,” he said.
Now, I get some of why law enforcement organizations dislike this bill. One argument against it is that an officer could well be sued for an action that was, at the time he carried it out, presumed to be constitutional, only for it to be ruled later as unconstitutional. That’s a fair concern, in my book, though I also think that maybe people need to understand that any gun control law should be presumed as unconstitutional until proven otherwise, but that’s just me.
However, Rep. Washut has a lot more faith in some of his former colleagues than I do.
I’m not anti-cop. I was raised by a police officer and around police officers. I know that most are good people who are trying to do a difficult job in a very difficult time.
But I also know that a lot of them are also likely to just keep their heads down and do what they’re told in way too many instances. That’s just human nature, and to think that every police officer in the state will do otherwise is naive, at best.
Others argued that this is a bill trying to solve an issue that simply doesn’t exist.
My response is that it may not exist at the moment, but it will exist sooner or later unless we’re very careful.
Of course, those who say this isn’t solving a real issue are the very same people who support making this a very real issue, so take that as you will.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
