At the recent Wyoming Association of Municipalities Summer Conference, a panel discussion drew an unusually sharp contrast between two principles conservatives hold dear: gun access, and local control.
On one side, the legislative sponsor of House Bill 172, the “Wyoming Repeal Gun Free Zones Act,” defended it as a triumph for Second Amendment rights and safety.
On the other, the mayor of Pinedale made a simple and powerful case for local control.
It wasn’t just a polite disagreement. It was a fundamental clash of governing philosophies -- one that’s playing out across Wyoming.
Let’s start with the loudest argument we’ve heard; that gun-free zones violate the Second Amendment. That claim gets repeated like gospel, but here’s the truth -- it’s not supported by the very Supreme Court decision Second Amendment absolutists love to cite.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most celebrated conservative jurist in modern American history, wrote the majority opinion that affirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. But he also wrote this:
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
That’s not a progressive law professor talking. That’s Scalia. And that’s binding precedent.
So when some legislators claim gun-free zones are unconstitutional, they’re not just ignoring the law. They’re ignoring the high court justice they usually hold up as an icon.
Why?
Because invoking the Constitution -- loudly, selectively, and often inaccurately -- is a tried-and-true political strategy. It shuts down disagreement. It stokes fear. And it avoids the messiness of real debate.
Which brings us back to the bill, days before it takes effect as law.
On paper, it repeals most gun-free zones in Wyoming. In practice, it overrides the will of local communities, school boards, and public safety officials. It tells them: “You don’t get to decide what’s best for your town, your classrooms, or your public buildings. We’ve already decided for you in Cheyenne.”
That’s not freedom. That’s centralized control.
We hear a lot about “local control” in this state; until it runs up against someone’s ideological agenda. The very lawmakers who campaign on getting government out of your lives are now the ones telling mayors, school trustees, and county commissioners that they can’t make public safety decisions on behalf of their constituents.
And here’s the kicker: those local officials are often far more accountable to you than any legislator. Mayors, council members, school board members, and commissioners typically receive more votes than state lawmakers. They show up to your town halls. They live down the street. When they make a policy call, like whether to allow guns in city hall or on school campuses, they do it based on what they hear from their neighbors, not from a national gun group’s scorecard.
The bill erodes that representation. It substitutes a one-size-fits-all mandate for the nuanced decisions communities need to make for themselves. That’s not a recipe for safety; it’s a formula for confusion and liability.
Let’s talk about schools. Under this new law, school districts must either scramble to write policies for armed staff or accept state-level rules with minimal say. Liability insurance becomes a minefield. Law enforcement response gets more complicated. Training requirements are uneven. And parents are left wondering who’s carrying a firearm near their kids and what happens if something goes wrong.
All of this is justified under the banner of rights. But don’t miss the irony; by repealing local discretion, the bill doesn’t expand freedom. It narrows it, concentrating decision-making in the hands of a few state legislators rather than the communities directly affected.
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a pattern. We’ve seen it with attempts to strip school boards of curriculum choices. With laws that override public health decisions. And now, with public safety measures around firearms. Each time, the playbook is the same: shout about liberty, then pass laws that silence local voices.
Here’s a suggestion. The next time someone tells you gun-free zones are a constitutional violation, ask them if they’ve read Heller. Then ask why a city council or school board elected by local voters shouldn’t be trusted to set rules for its own community.
Wyoming has a long and proud tradition of responsible gun ownership. But we also value community, common sense, and the right to govern ourselves. Let’s not allow fear -- and those who weaponize it -- to override the very local freedoms our lawmakers claim to defend.
Because when you strip away the slogans, this debate isn’t about rights being restored. It’s about power being taken from the people who know their communities best.
Gail Symons can be reached at: gailsymons@mac.com
