Recently, three strong Second Amendment bills passed the Wyoming Legislature and were sent to Gov. Gordon’s Desk. Two of these bills became law while the third bill was vetoed.

The two bills that became law lowered the minimum age to 18 for concealed carry permits (HB0096) and increased protections against Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders (HB0098) by making state and local enforcement of these orders a crime in Wyoming.

With these two bills, Wyoming returned rights to young adults and increased protections against the extreme Constitutional violations that are inherent with Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders.

These were huge wins for Second Amendment Rights that should not be forgotten in the wake of the veto of the Second Amendment Protection Act Amendments (SAPA, SF0101).

When Gov. Mark Gordon vetoed SAPA, which would have added a civil process to Wyoming’s existing criminal Second Amendment Protection laws that GOA helped pass in 2022, both he and some in the law enforcement community misrepresented many aspects of the actual bill text.

With this opinion, I want to address some of the worst mischaracterizations from the governor’s veto letter

SAPA MYTH VERSUS REALITY

1) The “Cartel” and “Smuggling” Fallacy — Governor Gordon suggested that updating SAPA would have hindered prosecutions of “violent crime,” “cartel activity,” and “cross-border smuggling.” This is categorically false. As the legislation was written, all protections applied “SOLELY” to federal actions regarding firearms enforced against “LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.”

The bill explicitly defined “law-abiding” citizen as a person not prohibited under Wyoming law from possessing a firearm, and it did not protect any person not lawfully present in the United States. The Bill placed zero restrictions on the ability of state and local authorities to collaborate in federal actions related to illegals and violent crime.

2) The “Criminals Will Get Away with Crime” Fallacy — By conflating crime and terrorism with the activities of law-abiding Wyoming citizens, the Governor and federal agencies engaged in fearmongering rather than an honest reading of the law.

The Bill was targeted in scope, by protecting only law-abiding citizens, and it specifically allowed the enforcement of all Wyoming laws and any federal law not specifically targeted at firearms (i.e., drug enforcement or immigration enforcement would still be allowed).

3) Correcting the “Printz v. United States” Court Ruling Fallacy — The Governor cited Printz v. United States as a reason the bill was “unnecessary.” This was a major legal error.

Read more at Cowboy State Daily