As political “red” states go, Wyoming is among the reddest. It’s so red, in fact, that the state has a law on the books providing penalties for government officials who infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of Cowboy State citizens.
Wyoming Statute 9-14-203 was passed in 2022 and imposes a penalty of up to a year of imprisonment and a fine up to $2,000 for state or local officials who infringe on 2A rights. Now, however, eight state legislators are pushing a plan to do away with the statute.
House Bill 283 completely rewrites the statute, taking out the Second Amendment protection portion. It originally stated: “This state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or funds appropriated by the legislature of the state of Wyoming, or any other source of funds that originated within the state of Wyoming to enforce, administer or cooperate with any unconstitutional act, law, treaty, executive order, rule or regulation of the United States government that infringes on or impedes the free exercise of individual rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”
If passed, the new provision would read: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or funds appropriated by the legislature of the state of Wyoming, or any other source of funds that originated within the state of Wyoming or any federal funds or other source of funds to enforce, administer or cooperate with attempt to enforce, provide material aid, support or participate in any manner in the enforcement or implementation of any unconstitutional act, law, treaty, executive order, rule or regulation of the United States government that infringes on or impedes the free exercise of individual rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States solely regarding firearms, accessories or ammunition against any law-abiding citizen.”
In another section, the measure strikes the section levying penalties for officials who knowingly violate citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
According to a state alert by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the eight lawmakers pushing the measure are Reps. Robert Wharff, Bo Biteman, Tim French, Bob Ide, Dan Laursen, Troy McKeown, Tim Salazar and Darin Smith.
“Why do these eight legislators want to destroy a Wyoming law that many pro-gun outlets have called America’s best Second Amendment Protection Act?” GOA asked in the alert. “Contact each of these Legislators and ask them why they propose to destroy the criminal provisions in Wyoming Statute 9-14-203. “
Indeed, that’s a valid question. Why would lawmakers move to get rid of such provisions? The only logical answer is that they plan to violate those provisions at one point or another and don’t want to be prosecuted for doing so. Alas, an exhaustive internet search didn’t turn up any further information on the bill or why its sponsors introduced it.
Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the eight lawmakers garner enough support for the measure. It’ll be a shame if they do, as the Wyoming law is the envy of gun-rights proponents in many other states who wish their citizens had such strong protection.
Are any of these politicians born and raised in the Cowboy state? Or are their parents from a red communist state?
Wharff if from Utah.
Biteman from Michigan.
French is from Wyoming.
Ide is from Colorado.
Laursen from Wyoming.
McKeon from Wyoming.
Smith is from Wyoming.
All are Republican. Clearly they’re up to something or have something to gain.
Officials aren’t used to being held accountable. It’s bipartisan. And of course, there could be some donors pulling the strings.
Speaking of donors with deep pockets, I hope Thom Tillis votes against RFK Jr. so that Tillis will incur the wrath of Nicole Shanahan. She’s ready to take out Warnock from GA next year which would mean supporting the Republican opponent. Tillis is another backstabbing RINO. He needs to go.
By trying to rewrite the law the jerks infringe.
So……are they subject to a fine for this action?
Interesting that they’re 100% Republicans.
Darin Smith’s campaign website even says “Pro-God, Pro-Family, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-Ag, Pro-Coal, Pro-Oil & Gas.”
Sort of makes me want to take a second look at the exact wording of the text, were they to have their way. So, I did.
The proposal is for the law to be amended to read:
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or funds appropriated by the legislature of the state of Wyoming, any other source of funds that originated within the state of Wyoming or any federal funds or other source of funds to enforce, attempt to enforce, provide material aid, support or participate in any manner in the enforcement or implementation of any act, law, treaty, executive order, rule or regulation of the United States government that solely regarding firearms, accessories or ammunition against any law-abiding citizen.”
Now, I’m not a lawyer but I can English at a middle school level or, on good days, a bit higher.
It strikes me that other than cleaning up the English a touch, what they’ve done here is remove words that are open to interpretation or may require a court’s judgement. That is, they’re attempting to make the law simple and inarguable in terms of when it applies.
For example, “unconstitutional act” becomes “act”. The first term has an adjective that is subject to interpretation and potentially legal wrangling. The second term is simply a noun referring to legislation passed into law.
The same basic thing happens later as well.
…rule or regulation of the United States government that infringes on or impedes the free exercise of individual rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States solely regarding firearms…
becomes
…rule or regulation of the United States government solely regarding firearms…
Which is actually removing a bunch of language that’s fertile ground for argument about whether or not something is or is not an infringement or impedes the free exercise of rights possessed by individuals under the 2A.
So, at a glance here it seems that this is actually them trying to remove squish from the language and make the law stronger, not weaker. I’d hazard the guess that they’re trying to head off any attempts to circumvent the spirit of the law by people who would argue that something’s not unconstitutional or that the State must enforce it until a court declares the law/EO/reg unconstitutional.
Which is a game the Left loves, to continue enforcement action while you have a Schrodinger’s Constitutionality issue as a means to effect as much damage as they can before being told to stop by a judge.
Ultimately, I’d like a comment from the people involved to see what they’re thinking but with all of five minutes allotted to this issue, I don’t immediately read this as being them behaving badly. I actually read this as some folks who actually understand how the Left operates and have decided to end-run the Left for once.
If that’s the case, I wholeheartedly approve and happily note that the total number of GOPers who seem to understand Lefty strategy and tactics might have actually breached double digits nationwide.
Mark it sounds like strych9 nailed it.
Dish out some Old West Justice,start with tarring and feathering ,if that doesn’t wake them a good rope party will
I disagree with the assessment of this article! I point you to Wyoming Gun Owners Association and Aaron Dorr. He as a video covering this. These politicians are rock solid Conservative Gun Supporters. They are strengthening the law not gutting it. Yes I’m am a Wyoming resident and a member of both GOA and WYGO!
Gun rights groups may disagree but should not work against each other! Why is GOA spending money and effort in one of the top gun supporting, toting red states when there are bigger battles elsewhere. I like love the GOA but they’re wrong on this one!
Words like elections can have consequences. strych9 has made a valid argument for the rewrite.
More words opens avenues for arguments unfavorable to the intent of the subject contained therein.
I.e., get to the point with as few words as possible. Removing “unconstitutional” is paramount.
I too found it odd that the authors were all republicans. However, it is not odd that no democrats, as of this writing, had signed on to this bill.
Bet they’re democrap cocksuckers!
EVERY ONE PRETENDS TO BE A REPUBLICAN.
RED STATE CHAMELEONS
Have to go with strych9 on this one….the longest comment and the only one that makes sense….
@strych9
“they should have stopped after Some Girls.”
Indeed, they should have gone home after that.