CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 10, 2025) – Today, the Wyoming Senate passed a bill that to strengthen the state’s feckless Second Amendment Protection Act, establishing a concrete prohibition on enforcing federal gun control – but a key loophole remains.
Sen. Tim Salazar filed Senate Bill 196 (SF196) with seven cosponsors to amend and improve the Wyoming Second Amendment Protection Act, signed as law in 2022. The law only restricts state-appropriated funds from being used for enforcement of federal gun control, leaving the door open for law enforcement to use federal grants or other funding sources to do so anyway. It also relies on vague language requiring a determination of constitutionality before enforcement is ended, which means law enforcement agencies have been able to continue enforcing federal gun control while deferring to the courts to make those decisions.
SF196 takes steps to address these loopholes by removing the determination requirement, and expanding the funding prohibition to all sources. However, because the enforcement ban applies only when actions are solely related to firearms, its real-world impact will likely remain limited.
Today, the Senate passed SF196 by a vote of 29-1.
FUNDING SOURCES
Under SF196, the state and all of its political subdivisions would be prohibited from using any personnel or any funding source – including state-funds, federal funds, and any other source – to “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 solely regarding firearms, accessories, or ammunition against any law-abiding citizen.”
This marks an important shift from the current law, which only applied the prohibition to state-appropriated funds and left open loopholes for federal grant money to fund enforcement.
A “law-abiding citizen” is defined as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or the state of Wyoming.”
DETERMINATIONS
One of the biggest weaknesses in the original law was its reliance on first determining whether a federal gun control measure was unconstitutional before enforcement could be restricted. In practice, this allowed state and local agencies to continue enforcing federal gun laws while deferring to the courts to make that decision.
SF196 removes this requirement, making the prohibition on enforcement concrete by eliminating the need for anyone to first assess the constitutionality of a federal gun control measure before enforcement is ended. Instead, the bill establishes a direct ban on using personnel or funds – regardless of the source – to enforce federal gun control measures.
The legislation would allow state and local agencies to accept federal assistance “for the enforcement of the laws of this state.”
PENALTIES
Any “interested party” would be able to bring a civil suit to enforce the provisions of the act. In such a law suit, “a court of competent jurisdiction may order injunctive or other equitable relief, recovery of damages or other legal remedies permitted by law and payment of reasonable attorney fees.”
Any state agency or political subdivision, including law enforcement agencies, that employs a person who violated the law would also be subject to civil action with a penalty of $50,000 per violation along with injunctive and/or equitable relief.
State or local public officers would be criminally liable for violating the law with penalties of up to 1 year in prison and/or up to a $2,000 fine.
Any political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs a “public officer … or peace officer … who previously acted as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the United States government” who violated the law would also be subject to a $50,000 civil penalty.
SOLELY
Despite these improvements, the bill still includes a loophole that could severely limit its impact.
The bill’s language is precise – and limited. The prohibition applies only when an enforcement action is focused “solely” on firearms, accessories, or ammunition:
“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 solely regarding firearms, accessories or ammunition against any law abiding citizen.” [emphasis added]
While supporters of SF196 may not intend for this language to weaken the bill, opponents of the Second Amendment – including those within the state and federal governments – will almost certainly interpret it as narrowly as possible. By retaining solely, the bill leaves open an avenue for federal gun control enforcement to continue with state and local assistance, as long as an additional charge – such as drug offenses, tax evasion, or anything else – is included in the case.
Since federal gun prosecutions almost always involve additional charges, this wording creates an easy way for gun control advocates to argue that state and local law enforcement are still permitted to cooperate with federal agencies in most cases. Simply put, leaving solely in the bill provides a legal loophole that can be exploited by those seeking to undermine its intent.
To ensure the prohibition on enforcement is as effective and impactful as possible, the word solely must be removed.
IMPACT
The federal government depends on state cooperation to enforce most of its laws and programs, including gun control. During the 2013 partial government shutdown, the National Governors’ Association noted, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
This approach aligns with the anti-commandeering doctrine, which affirms that states are not obligated to use their resources to enforce federal acts or regulatory programs. By simply refusing to help enforce, states can nullify many federal actions in practice and effect.
LEGAL BASIS
Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.
This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.
Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“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.”
The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.
WHAT’S NEXT
SF196 will move to the House for further consideration. It will be assigned to a committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- The “Declare War” Lie: What the Founders and Constitution REALLY Said - March 17, 2025
- The Supremacy Clause Hoax: How We Became What the Founders Fought - March 14, 2025
- Second Amendment Preservation Act Clears Key Hurdle in Missouri - March 13, 2025