|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
WY: State law enforcement sounds alarm as ‘Second Amendment’ bill advances in legislature
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“None of the individuals that presented the bill or provided testimony indicated any specific case where this piece of legislation would solve a problem that we currently have in the state of Wyoming,” Casper Police Department Captain Jeremy Tremel told Oil City News on Monday.
House and Senate versions of the Second Amendment Protection Act Amendments bill that moved through respective appropriations committees would significantly modify a 2022 bill that established penalties for law enforcement cooperating with any “unconstitutional” federal law regarding firearms.
Tremel said the 2022 law was sound and straightforward, as law enforcement are keenly aware of what is and isn’t constitutional and stay up-to-date with case law. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(3/5/2026)
|
| NOW YOU KNOW what all cops actually think of the 2nd amendment. The enforcement class doesn't want you having any power or rights. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
