Our RoleWyoming Gun Law is a firm dedicated to the interests, education and protection of the Wyoming firearms industry and the broader gun community. We pursue this objective on two fronts: The first is providing gun manufactures, dealers and individuals with unique and comprehensive legal resources to manage issues and risks specifically associated with the manufacture, purchase, ownership, use, transfer, transport and sale of regulated and unregulated firearms. Second, Wyoming Gun Law serves as a daily voice of news and commentary on the current political, social and legal issues defining the debate on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. We are not a law firm and do not provide legal services directly, but comprehensive legal services tailored to the gun community and the firearms industry are available through our affiliate law firm, Capital Law & Advisory Partners, LLC.
Our PhilosophyWyoming Gun Law and its mission are driven by the understanding that the unalienable rights and individual freedoms on which our nation was founded are of paramount importance to the welfare of each person, not just politically but socially, economically and spiritually. The Bill of Rights was expressly created to safeguard that freedom against government usurpation, and the Second Amendment is the lynchpin which ensures the continued vitality of all other rights set forth therein. As government encroaches farther and farther into the life-spaces once clearly reserved for the individual, and as political winds blow more frivolously and capriciously against personal liberty, the rights granted under the Second Amendment become simultaneously more threatened and more vital to our Republic. With that truth in mind, Wyoming Gun law is committed to exposing threats to the individual right to keep and bear arms and its associated freedoms and to equipping law-abiding citizens and businesses with the legal tools to navigate the mercurial rubric of restrictions imposed by state and federal gun laws. In so doing, we hope to help those who support the Second Amendment and our other civil rights stand firm against the gusting winds of political expediency.
“The Bill of Rights was not intended to make it easy to do the things we want to do, but rather to make it difficult to do the things we ought not to do.” – Glenn Harland Reynolds
We do not represent – legally or philosophically – those who use our gun freedoms irresponsibly. The power and legitimacy of the Second Amendment rest upon the right of each individual to live out his or her ideal of personal liberty. Those who exploit the Second Amendment for less noble ends diminish the Second Amendment and the interests of the broader gun community.
Latest From the Blog
THE DEMS HAVE ABANDONED ANY PRETENSE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THEIR ATTACKS AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT. NOW, IT'S ALL ABOUT CRASS VIRTUE-SIGNALING AND CONFIRMING THEIR "WOKE" BONA FIDES. The ordinance won't withstand constitutional scrutiny:
So the ordinance violates the First Amendment just because of its disclosure requirement alone. And it also invites First Amendment discrimination lawsuits by individual contractors who are denied contracts after they disclose that they deal with the NRA, just as an employer's asking applicants to disclose their religion would invite religious discrimination lawsuits by applicants who aren't hired (and even in the absence of specific regulations barring such question).
Naturally, the same would be true if a city asked companies whether they do business with or sponsor the NAACP, the ACLU, or any other group because of the group's political advocacy. But note that this principle applies only when the disfavored groups are selected because of what they say or what laws they support; the analysis would be different if an ordinance focuses on nonspeech actions. Asking companies where they have any contracts for building a border wall, for instance, would not violate the First Amendment, because such building isn't protected by the First Amendment. (Some such queries might in some situations violate other rules, such as those related to federal preemption, but that's a separate matter.)
Bad policies make bad laws, and THIS GUN BILL [LINK] proves the point. In an effort to stem the non-existent problem of mass killings attributable to the private sales of firearms, the Left has proposed a bill that would have no deterrent effect on criminals but would ensnare a broad swath of otherwise-innocent citizens as unintentional felons.
"The bill is H.R. 8, the “bipartisan” Background Checks Act of 2019. As introduced, the legislation would mandate background checks even when a gun is temporarily transferred from one person or entity to another.
This would cover transfers of firearms with historical significance to a museum for public display, a suicidal person who asks a friend to take his guns, or an injured car accident victim who alerts an emergency responder that there is a gun in his vehicle and asks the responder to keep the gun from falling into the wrong hands when the vehicle is towed."
As you ponder the absurd consequences of the bill, keep in mind that its underlying purpose has little to do with stopping criminal activity and everything to do with furthering the broad political agenda of the Left: bigger and more invasive government, undermining traditional American culture, disarming the citizenry, and placating the Dem's emerging socialist base.
I wish the sponsor of THIS GEORGIA BILL EXEMPTING THE TAX ON FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS OUT OF FAIRNESS TO WOMEN and the BROWN UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATOR WHO DECIDED FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS SHOULD BE STOCKED IN THE MEN'S RESTROOMS would get together and decide whether or not both men and women need such products. The answer was self-evident from the beginning of human history until last year, but it now appears that the Left is suddenly divided on the issue. I have no problem exempting those items from taxation (the fewer taxes, the better), but if the reason for doing so is to remove an inequitable burden on women, what do you tell the "men" at Brown who use them as well?
At some point, the edgy concept of intersectionality will, by necessity, collapse under its own weight because, if our woke thought-police continue to slice society into an infinite number of distinct victim groups, eventually everyone becomes both a victim and a perpetrator. This emerging reality is exemplified by the recent REACTION TO MARTINA NAVRATILOVA'S OPPOSITION TO TRANSGENDER ATHLETES. Remarkably, Navratilova, a legendary tennis star and pioneer of women's rights and gay rights, is now cast as an oppressor in the emerging turf war within the LGBT community. When victimhood becomes power, the race becomes one to the bottom, and everyone loses.