Skip to content

Wyoming Governor signs Firearm Freedom act into law

CHEYENNE — With some trepidation, Governor Dave Freudenthal on Thursday signed into law a bill asserting that Wyoming-made firearms are exempt from all federal laws and regulations.

The legislation, which takes effect in July, is meant as a shot across the bow of the federal government. But it’s unclear whether the new law will remain a symbolic declaration of states’ and Second Amendment rights, or spark a real-life confrontation between state and federal officials.

Under the law, any firearms made from scratch in Wyoming — besides automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenade launchers — are officially exempt from all federal gun laws so long as the gun isn’t taken out of the state.
That means no three-day waiting period to buy a Wyoming-made gun, no Federal Firearms License needed, no federal taxes to pay…..

Wyoming is the third state to pass a Firearms Freedom Act, after Montana and Tennessee. The laws are all based on the argument that since the federal government justifies its ability to regulate firearms on a section of the U.S. Constitution allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce, any guns that never leave a state are exempt from federal control.

But Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act is harsher than the other states’ laws, as it says that any state or federal official who tries to enforce any federal gun law on firearms made and sold in Wyoming could face a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

(note, there’s an error in this, Wyoming is the fourth state to pass such a law, Utah just passed one. But Wyoming’s IS the first with penalties for federal officials who violate it.)


The problem with States’ Rights gun bills

By Michael W. Dean

The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act-2., Wyoming bill  HB0095 has been signed and will become law in July. It’s a Tenth Amendment treatment of the Second Amendment, i.e. it is a States’ Rights deceleration.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Wyoming bill HB0095 will allow our state to circumvent the federal government’s gun laws for guns made and used in the state. (Most federal gun laws use the “Interstate Commerce Clause” to insert the feds into state business.) HB0095 rightfully applies the 10th Amendment (States’ Rights) to declare that if guns & ammo are made here and only ever used here, and not shipped out of state, they do not come under federal jurisdiction.

Both Tennessee and Montana tried this last year. But the feds basically said “No, you’re wrong.” The states said “Why?”, the feds said “BECAUSE WE SAY SO!”, and both states basically said “OK. We’re sorry…never mind.”

The Wyoming bill, HB0095, is different in that it allows the state to prosecute federal agents who ignore this law.

I’m all for this bill. But the problem with it is that in order to be more than a piece of paper, it would have to go to be tried in the courts. For that to happen, it could require a Wyoming citizen to get arrested by the feds, so Wyoming can arrest the fed who arrested the Wyoming citizen. Because that would give it teeth. Otherwise it’s just like the Tennessee and Montana bills: a nice start, but just a piece of paper in reality.

I think it has to be tested to make it stick.

My prediction: a Wyoming citizen will make a few silencers in his barn on his lathe, sell ’em at the swap meet, get arrested by a fed. Wyoming will arrest the fed who arrests the Wyoming citizen. It could likely turn into a “hostage negotiation and prisoner exchange.” With one side trading a prisoner to the other side for their prisoner. And the new law might get muted as a condition of the process

Wyoming will likely pick and choose who to use as a test case…probably find the least “gun nutty” person arrested to make the case….like was done in DC in [i]Heller[/i], and like is happening in the Supreme Court now with that old grandpa in Chicago. So I wouldn’t count on smooth sailing for everyone who decides to test this if/when it passes. I think it also might have to do with timing in relation to the upcoming elections.

Or the feds might keep their prisoner, and just bring in an army to take back their prisoner.

There may be someone willing to be a martyr for it. I’m not going to volunteer for that job. There are generally no conjugal visits in federal prison. But if there are people willing to die for liberty, there must be someone willing to face prison to test a law. (Though I’d wait until after the election. No reason to get thrown to the lions just to get someone votes.)

To be clear, I am NOT encouraging anyone to try be the test case. Encouraging that could be illegal.

The way this will likely be tested will be the way the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller was done. Someone (in this case, probably the state attorney general) will review cases and find the most non-“gun nut” candidate who’s already been arrested.

For District of Columbia v. Heller, a wealthy libertarian attorney (Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute) who has never even owned a gun hired a team and looked at and vetted a bunch of people who had been turned down for a permit in DC. They settled on a policeman, a “regular guy” who didn’t rock the boat in any other area of his life.

Levy and team didn’t want much involvement from the gun lobby either. They figured (probably correctly) that the case would have a better public face if it were more about rights not guns, even though it was about gun rights.

The gun lobby, at least the NRA, would likely NOT touch this Wyoming one. It’s a little too libertarian of a bill and not Republican enough for them. (My prediction? They won’t give it much ink.)

The GOA or JPFO, and WGOA would likely jump all over it though, so there is that.

There are other possible ways this could be tested. A corporation could ignore federal law and be prosecuted by the feds.  A corporation would have to risk having all their assets seized. And if that corporation started making machine guns and selling them over the internet with people driving within the state to pick them up at the factory, the feds would likely also arrest the guys at the loading dock filling orders, and the customers picking them up.

The third way I could see is the feds testing it simply on the State of Wyoming, just for passing it. But win or lose, that would risk having federal funding cut off, like the feds usually threaten to do when states have raised their speed limits in the past. The state would likely risk that anyway if they defended an individual or corporation on this, too. “Dad’s gonna cut off your allowance if you don’t behave.”

That might just be what it takes. Losing federal funding. Because “nailing some paper to the church door” is a nice start, but it doesn’t have teeth.

It’s one thing to yell “GET OFF MY PROPERTY!” at trespassers. It’s another thing entirely to keep trespassers off your property.

Posted in Cool stuff we like!, guns, liberty.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

6 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Justin says

    I agree, if the feds want to push it, they will, but laws like this still make a statement if nothing else. They’re telling the federal government that at least some people are tired of being nannied.

    Medical Marijuana is legal here in Montana, even though it’s illegal according to the feds. The feds know who’s growing it, they know who’s distributing it, but for the most part they’ve left everyone alone. Just like a lot of things, if it doesn’t become a “problem”, they’ll probably turn their heads and avoid the negative publicity. Trouble with that is that the longer they do that, the more people there will be with their asses hanging out in the wind if they ever decide to regulate and do a round up. Just one more way that they have us by the balls whether we like it or not.


  2. Freedom Outlaw says

    Congratulations on the new law!

    (never thought I’d use that phrase…oh well…)

  3. Aaron says

    Mike, you should read the law itself. Silencers wouldn’t fall under its jurisdiction. Neither would full-autos, weapons with a caliber larger than 30mm, crew-served or other non-man portable weapons, etc. There’s a long list of exemptions, including silencers and explosives.

    It’s more likely that what will happen is someone will make a 30mm rifle (a guy in Torrington already does) without an FFL and sell it to someone who also doesn’t have an FFL. Once the guy builds it for profit, he technically falls under the jurisdiction of the BATFE and will thus become a target.

    That is the more likely way this would pan out.

    The good news for Wyoming types? The BATFE has no officers on hand here to speak of. They rely on local law enforcement and bring up their boys from Denver.

    The bad news? It won’t matter, they’ll do it anyway.

  4. Lowglow says

    A very will written post and I thank you.
    To me this is way more than the issue of Gun rights, Gun rights to me is just the Pin in the Grenade, and many people I talk to feel this way, if we give up such an openly specified right outlined in our Constitution, we will know that our freedoms are gone and it will be time to either hide in the dark, or get up and fight, because I have no desire as a Father to leave my Kids with a Nation were they will not enjoy the Freedoms I did.

Continuing the Discussion

  1. Wyoming Governor signs Firearm Freedom act into law linked to this post on March 16, 2010

    […] Governor signs Firearm Freedom act into law repost from here (I'm posting this here, not on the Wyoming board, because it has national implications.) —- […]

  2. Militant Libertarian » The DEA, Patient Files, and Removing the Federal Menace from Cannabis Legalization linked to this post on February 5, 2011

    […] for instance, it is against the law and there are even criminal penalties for federal agents who ignore Wyoming firearms laws.  That particular law is the State of Wyoming telling the federal government to back off – in […]