01-03-2025
Amended SAPA bill passes House Appropriations Committee
CHEYENNE — The House Appropriations Committee passed an amended version of Senate File 196, 'Second Amendment Protection Act amendments,' on Wednesday after three hours of public testimony spread over two days.
If passed and allowed to become law, the bill would prohibit law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws within the state, adding civil penalties to an existing Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) that was passed in 2022.
One of the key adjustments made to the bill Wednesday was the addition of a severability clause. This provision allows the legislation to remain valid if some of its terms are deemed unenforceable. This provision was added to prevent courts from fully striking down the law if they find some parts unreasonable, as happened with the SAPA bill in Missouri, according to Mark Jones, a national director with Gun Owners of America (GOA).
'GOA has always supported the concept of having both criminal and civil cause of action in the Second Amendment Protection Act,' Jones said.
GOA originally opposed SF 196, as the original draft of the bill removed the criminal penalty outlined in the 2022 version of SAPA. But after criminal penalties were restored to the bill earlier this month, GOA moved to support the bill.
'Many people have been surprised that we've now shifted to supporting this bill,' Jones said. 'But we're more interested in doing what's right for the citizens of Wyoming than we are playing political games, unlike a lot of people.'
Jones' amendments, added to the bill by Rep. Jeremy Haroldson, R-Wheatland, adjusted some basic language and added the severability clause.
While the majority of those who addressed the committee Wednesday were supporters of the bill, there were some serious concerns about how this legislation would be applied in an actual lawsuit.
Casper lawyer Joshua Stensaas spoke to the committee on behalf of the county attorneys association, reiterating some of the concerns voiced to the committee on Tuesday by law enforcement.
Stensaas took issue with the bill's definition of law-abiding, which he said left a lot of room for confusion in situations where police need to be able to take charge.
If law enforcement responds to a domestic disturbance in which an intoxicated person is smashing up their property while in possession of a gun, that person is technically law-abiding. There are no laws that prohibit someone from being intoxicated with a gun or to stop them from doing damage to their own property, Stensaas said.
'The first thing law enforcement is going to do is ask him to set his gun down because it is a very tenuous situation and almost impossible to figure out what is going on until he sets that gun down,' Stensaas said. 'And under your definition … he's a law-abiding citizen at that point.'
Similar to a Missouri SAPA law that was challenged by the Biden administration and struck down by federal courts, the bill would also impose a $50,000 penalty against violating agencies per violation. Having that fee removes the court's ability to discern a reasonable penalty, Stensaas argued.
'You're requiring the agency to pay $50,000 per violation,' Stensaas said. 'The judge couldn't say, 'Hey, we think in this case that the officer was acting appropriately, perhaps the agency should have a $500 fine.''
To address these issues, Stensaas recommended amending the language to say 'up to a $50,000 fine,' allowing for the court's discretion.
Rep. Abby Angelos, R-Gillette, attempted to introduce an amendment that would have addressed Stensaas's concerns about the bill's definition of law-abiding by shifting the language from a 'law-abiding citizen' to 'acting in a law-abiding manner.'
The amendment was seconded by Rep. Trey Sherwood, D-Laramie.
'Can any of us really pinpoint the exact moment that a law-abiding citizen becomes a non-law-abiding citizen?' Sherwood asked her peers. 'Is it in the courtroom when the judge says, 'Here's what I've decided'? Is it at the point that the flashing lights turn on behind you and you realize you've done something stupid?'
Sherwood asked the committee to consider the gray areas in life between doing the right thing and breaking the law, saying that Angelos' amendment would allow officers to act with their best judgment.
Rep. Ken Pendergraft, R-Sheridan, pushed back on the amendment, saying that 'law-abiding manner' was too broad and got into the territory of determining intent. The amendment was defeated.
The amended bill passed with only Sherwood opposed.
