The Second Amendment shouldn't require states to pass laws in order to preserve it. The fact that it's part of the Constitution should do that just fine.
Unfortunately, that's not how things have worked, and the left wants to take their infringements up a notch or 12.
So, as a result, some states are looking at ways they can protect the rights of residents, even if the feds have forgotten what the Second Amendment is all about. Unfortunately, in Wyoming, the sheriffs are universally opposed to the bill intending to do just that.
Last week, all 23 Wyoming sheriffs visited Cheyenne to testify against a gun rights bill that they say would inhibit how local law enforcement works with federal agencies.
House Bill 130, known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, or SAPA, would add a civil penalty for local law enforcement for assisting the federal government in seizing guns from citizens.
The problem is, sheriffs argue, that local agencies hand guns to federal authorities all the time during investigations.
Gov. Mark Gordon vetoed a similar bill during the 2025 legislative session over concerns the bill would inhibit law enforcement cooperation with federal agencies.
Gordon likened the bill to “defund the police” efforts nationally at the time, according to reporting by the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.
Wyoming also passed a Second Amendment Protection Act in 2022 that punishes individual police officers if they are found to have violated the second amendment rights of a rightful gun owner.
House Bill 130 passed the House on a 49-12 vote, and the Senate Revenue Committee last week recommended it for approval on a 4-1 vote.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Robert Wharff, said he was presenting the bill as an “old friend that keeps popping up,” to the Senate Revenue Committee.
All 23 sheriffs in full uniform sat before the committee members.
This year’s SAPA bill adds a $50,000 civil penalty per violation to any agency that hands guns to the federal government in compliance with an unconstitutional act the federal government may pass.
Now, there will likely be court battles no matter what happens, but I can't help but wonder if the opposition to these from all 23 sheriffs in the state has more to do with the possibility of their agencies being penalized for handing guns over to the feds. Especially when they might not find out that it's considered unconstitutional until after they've done it.
Which is kind of the point.
The issue is that some are saying this creates a chilling effect on local departments working with federal agencies. However, that seems suspicious considering most federal agencies aren't enforcing gun control laws in the first place. Just keep the ATF out, and all will be well.
On the same token, if the ATF would actually focus on someone other than lawful dealers and gun owners, then most states probably wouldn't even bother considering a measure like this in the first place.
For what it's worth, Wharff has gone on record as saying this is about protecting law enforcement from being forced to take part in any future actions by the feds to strip Americans of their guns. It's not about what's on the books at the moment, so it's a non-issue.
Unless, of course, these sheriffs are planning on bending the knee.
If that's the case, well...
