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.
Printz merely establishes that the federal government cannot FORCE state and local authorities to enforce federal law (anti-commandeering doctrine).
The Printz Court Ruling does nothing to prevent state and local authorities from "voluntarily" using taxpayer-funded Wyoming personnel and resources to enforce federal firearms orders or laws that have no parallel in Wyoming statutes. This is precisely what the Bill intended to prevent—the voluntary conscription of state resources into the enforcement of federal gun control.
4) The Governor's Assertion that SAPA was a "meal ticket for litigators" Fallacy -- In reality, the provisions found in SAPA Amendments (SF0101) would have merely ensured that state and local authorities must pause to consider whether an activity was "Solely" related to federal firearms operations. Federal operations that were "Solely" related to firearms operations would be off-limits, and other federal operations could continue as they do now.
Any citizen who felt their Rights were violated by Wyoming's participation in a federal firearms operation would face a long uphill battle. They would have to be able to afford to hire attorneys and seek Justice under this law. That process is not cheap, as GOA knows full well. Most attorneys will not take these cases on a Contingency basis but, instead, want thousands of dollars up-front before taking a court case against "The Government."
Furthermore, and despite claims to the contrary, any payments from successful lawsuits would come from Agency budgets because the bill specifically protected individual officers from being sued.
SUMMING IT ALL UP
Opposition to the Bill was rooted in a powerful desire to maintain a strong connection between federal and Wyoming police power.
As GOA's Senior Vice President Erich Pratt stated, "This bill was about drawing a line in the sand. It was about ensuring that if the federal government chooses to pursue a path of unconstitutional firearm restrictions, they must do so without the help of Wyoming’s resources. We remain committed to seeing these protections enacted and holding the Governor accountable for turning his back on the Second Amendment.”
It is obvious that the Wyoming governor exercised the immense power of the Wyoming Executive Branch and stood alongside federal authorities while ignoring the will of 72% of the elected Wyoming Legislature who originally voted to pass SF0101. He also vetoed a nearly identical bill in 2025 which passed the Legislature by an even wider margin.
Wyoming is among the top states for Second Amendment Rights, but we still have work to do until we provide a path for citizens to take Civil Action in Court against the government when their Rights are infringed upon.
Mark Jones
Certified Wildlife Biologist®
Gun Owners of America
