The only firearms bill left is:
SF0102 Second Amendment Protection Act.
Sponsored by: Senator(s) Hicks, Cooper, Dockstader, Driskill, Kinskey, Kolb, Kost, Nethercott and Steinmetz and Representative(s) Burkhart, Greear, Haroldson, Jennings, Olsen and Styvar.
THIS BILL PASSED Introduction (21-9-0-0-0) on Feb 17 and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
(NOTE: There are two additional legislators who are listed as sponsors of SF0102 at the legislative website but their names do not actually appear on the digital version of the bill or the bill pdf; they are House Representatives Chip Neiman and Art Washut. Their names occur at the right on the website page for SF0102 and also on the Digest page for SF0102. It is unclear if they in fact are sponsors of this bill or not. Image is here)
Having said that, we hear this is the least favorable firearms bill of the three that were on the table.
It gets a little complicated but here’s the skinny we received:
SF0087 Second Amendment Preservation Act and HB0133 Second Amendment Preservation Act-2 (both dead now) were “mirror bills”, meaning they were identical. Both bills were referred to as the SAPA bills. You might have received alerts in your email on the need to support the SAPA bills from Wyoming Gun Owners, Liberty’s Place 4 U WY, or read about them at the Tenth Amendment Center.
The only bill left, SF0102 Second Amendment Protection Act, is NOT a SAPA bill. The name difference: The SAPA bills have the word ‘Preservation’ in their title, SF0102 has the word ‘Protection’.
We are unsure if this bill can be salvaged through amendments.
We highly suggest contacting Wyoming Gun Owners to get their educated take on this, and follow their lead.
Below is what the Tenth Amendment Center posted about SF0102:
The proposed law would prohibit the state or any political subdivision of the state from using personnel or funds appropriated by the legislature of the state of Wyoming or any other source of funds that originated within the state to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, judicial or 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 to the Constitution.
There are two problems with this language.
1. It doesn’t define any specific acts that infringe on or impede the exercise of individual rights. This would leave it to the discretion of state agents to determine whether or not to enforce a given federal act. In practice, state agents will almost never make that call and will defer to the courts to rule something unconstitutional before ending enforcement. Without specifically defining what types of federal actions the state can’t enforce, state agents will continue to enforce all of them.
2. The language only prohibits the use of state appropriations to enforce federal gun control. This leaves the door open for the state of Wyoming to use federal funds to enforce federal gun control. With billions of dollars flowing into state and local law enforcement agencies from federal sources, this would almost certainly ensure Wyoming police would continue to assist the feds in enforcement even with the passage of this bill. In fact, the language was written to specifically allow state and local law enforcement to work on federal task forces to enforce federal gun control.
Dorr called this bill “a complete con job.”
The bill also lacks any provision for people to take agents to civil court for violations of the law. It would require a state prosecutor to enforce the law.
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Wyoming can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.
Hat-tip to the Tenth Amendment Center on this crucial info on WY 2022 Senate File SF0102.
