Comments on: Wyoming Legislators Introduce Bill Restricting Your Right to Carry

By: Wyoming Legislators Introduce Bill Restricting Your Right to Carry | Fighting For Liberty

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:46:33 +0000

[...] Wyoming Legislators Introduce Bill Restricting Your Right to Carry. [...]

By: Don Wills

Don Wills — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:53:57 +0000

HB104, the bill that nullifies any federal ban on semi-autos and accessories, was amended to include presidential executive orders (making it stronger) in addition to federal laws and BATF regs, just passed out of committee 8-1. It includes penalties for federal agents who break the Wyoming law.

By: Don Wills

Don Wills — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:12:05 +0000

HB200 was modified in committee to exactly reverse the intent and function of the bill. After the amendment, it is now a good bill that specifically allows carry in government buildings. As amended, it then passed out of committee 8-0. Also HB103 and HB105 passed out of committee 8-1 this morning. HB104, the nullification bill that the NRA IS NOT SUPPORTING, is being discussed now.

Jim – as for Montana gun laws being superior to Wyoming – I disagree. When Montana enacts an license-free concealed carry law and a FFA with penalties for federal agents who break that law, I’ll agree with you. Until that happens, Wyoming is better than Montana on gun laws – at least right now.

Besides – what a great contest – to see which state can have the most gun friendly laws!!! We all win.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:30:43 +0000

Nothing new there… Wyoming pretends to be staunchly conservative but in truth, we are ….overshadowed by the courage and tenactity of our neighbor to the north… Montana. There are a number of gun bills working thru the legislative process notably House Bills 103, 104 and 105. The antigun Republicans are doing their best to defeat all of them.

By: Dale McMahan

Dale McMahan — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:15:48 +0000

Maybe the double edge sword idea needs to be made available. If a criminal walks into a bar full of off duty law enforcement people, and decides to hold up the place. Who do you think would be able to stop him?

By: terry

terry — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:30:17 +0000

attn all criminals: all gov. meetings welcome you to thier crime spree zones, and promise no one will fight, back!

By: DaveGinOly

DaveGinOly — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:35:31 +0000

Makes you wonder if they don’t trust the permit system. Someone who has been vetted by the state as capable of safely carrying a concealed weapon in public is someone who should be trustworthy. If not, why was the permit issued? Restrictions of all types on concealed carry permit holders make no sense for this reason. They only create a set of traps for law-abiding permit holders who may inadvertently violate the law. Of course, they provide no deterent effect to the criminal element. All of these restrictions on permit holders should be replaced with harsher criminal penalties for criminal acts with firearms when conducted at/in such places. This would protect the law-abiding permit holders while at the same time providing the same level of “feel-good,” because we know violent offenders don’t care about the law and the penalties anyway!

By: Roy Roeser

Roy Roeser — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:00:32 +0000

These type articles need to be more specific. Exactly where are these people are from AKA Town.. When they are up for relection, a method of reminding “Volunteers ” that they are needed in their district to rally votes for their opponents..Can’t get away , send opponents money.

By: billybegood

billybegood — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:08:02 +0000

I wonder what else these REP lickan’s have been doing ? How have the voted on other bills ? Is it time for them to get a JOB they will fill better at ? MC Donalds might be able to use their limited skills.
They will be able to tell all their friends about the time they were law makers any way.

By: MamaLiberty

MamaLiberty — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:42:21 +0000

Really makes you wonder just what in the heck they’re all so afraid of. Last time I looked, no elected official or staff has ever been actually threatened by a person carrying… let alone harmed.

If they don’t want a “civil disturbance,” why the heck don’t they quit disturbing us?

In the meantime, “concealed” means concealed. How the devil would they know anyway? (Not that I would advocate doing anything “illegal” of course…)

Just more make work and “feel good” crap from busybodies who think they should control other people’s lives.

And, BTW, the link given to contact legiscritters above does not lead to anything actually useful… unless you want to send a snail mail message anyway.

By: Raconteur

Raconteur — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:15:59 +0000

This legislation is so broad that if a dog catcher and court clerk were taking a crap in a restaurant and talked government business (but I repeat myself), it would be illegal for a citizen to carry in the restroom.
Somebody needs to crap on those two “representatives”.

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:48:41 +0000

If they worded it so as it would be illegal to carry an illegal firearm then they could feel good and it wouldn’t infringe on the people with CC permits.