Bill Tallen

Among the many issues being addressed in Cheyenne this legislative session is, as always, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a topic that is often “first in the hearts of our countrymen,” George Washington notwithstanding. In the docket this week is SF 196, a bill amending the Second Amendment Protection Act — SAPA — which was signed into law in 2022, and has been alternately scorned and celebrated by the various pro-gun lobbyists. It hasn’t yet had a trial by fire because assaults on the right to keep and bear arms are pretty rare in Wyoming. Most people close to the issue do agree that the original law would benefit from a tune-up, although tempers flare and insults fly over just what can and should be done with it, and that’s the novelty in this case.

Wyoming Gun Owners and Gun Owners of America are actually agreeing on this bill, after its amendment in committee Feb. 4, ending their attacks on each other and on the bill’s legislative sponsors, who include our Sen. Tim French and Rep. Dan Laursen. Peace has reigned since the bill was amended to not just add civil liability for state agencies that stray into odious cooperation with federal officers, but also to restore the original criminal penalties for individual Wyoming officers who take a wrong step in the minefield of definitions and ambiguities that the bill presents. 

That will probably all work out in the end, because the application of the law will rest in the hands of lawyers, that most principled and public-spirited profession in our republic, who will guard against any possible abuse on behalf of their clients. And deterring bad behavior by public servants with a threat of fines and imprisonment will no doubt help with the issue faced by law enforcement agencies across the state, of recruiting and retaining good deputies and officers.

But I digress. In a more philosophical mode, since the bill appears likely to pass both houses and be signed by the governor, here are a couple of interesting arguments that have been brought to my attention lately.

First, SAPA or no SAPA, it is federal agents who file federal criminal charges for violations of federal firearms law, not Deputy Fife or city or county attorneys. The SAPA law and its current proposed amendment could have saved some verbiage and considerable complexity by recognizing this reality, and concentrating on the issue of providing material aid or support for federal actions, which is what state and local law enforcement actually can do in these cases. 

The way that aid and support works historically in Wyoming, is that federal authorities politely approach Wyoming agencies with warrants, evidence, and intent — and request their assistance. No racks or thumbscrews. I have no digest of all the incidents in which that has occurred, but it’s important to note that more than a century of U.S. Supreme Court precedent reinforces the right of state agencies, at that point, to Just Say No. That is known as the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, which long ago established that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state personnel to enforce federal law, either by threats or by coercion such as withdrawing federal funding. If a chief or sheriff is not persuaded by a BATFE case, he or she can decline to assist. This Supreme Court precedent will protect both officers and their agencies if they get crosswise with the BATFE or other feds over the enforcement of federal gun laws, regulations, and so forth. If your police and deputies are not willing to stand up, legally, and decline to support questionable federal actions, that might be more a political question than a criminal or civil one. Just saying.

Let’s hope that the new and improved SAPA will be more than a solution in pursuit of a problem, and that we are spared unintended consequences and mischievous legal exploitation.