Wyoming Governor Vetoes Second Amendment Protection Act

For the second year in a row, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon has vetoed legislation aimed at preventing law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws. Gordon’s veto was hardly unexpected, given that last week he called the proposed amendments to the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act an “embarrassment” and described it as fundraising disguised as legislation. 

Gordon, who vetoed a similar bill last year, cast it as an affront to local law enforcement during the radio show.

“So, when you have 23 sheriffs come in and say, ‘This Second Amendment protection act does nothing more than what we already have in law, except it imposes penalties on our local law enforcement — and criminal charges, potentially.’ That is devastating,” Gordon said.

He continued: “It’s a bill that’s brought from out-of-state interests. It’s a fundraising thing. And I’m sick of Wyoming people being used as, you know, some treasure trough, some well of funding.”

Gordon’s veto drew condemnation from groups like Firearms Policy Coalition, which had some choice words for the governor in response to his post on X about rejecting the legislation.

You’re quite the useless fucking bootlicker, Guv.

Good to know.

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 10, 2026

Gordon may enjoy the taste of shoe leather, but it’s also worth noting that just like last year, this session’s SAPA bill was heavily pushed by Wyoming Gun Owners, one of multiple groups run by the Dorr brothers, who bill their groups as “no compromise” organizations but have been accused of primarily using the Second Amendment as a grift by politicians and other 2A activists (Incidentally, the Dorrs also set up a 501(c)3 called Six Brothers Disaster Relief, Inc. that had its non-profit status revoked by the IRS in 2022 after failing to file its Form 990 disclosures three years in a row).

While Gordon may be right about Wyoming Gun Owners’ real mission, though, this years SAPA bill did get majority support in both chambers… including buy in from the handful of Democrats in the legislature, 

[Sen. Chris] Rothfuss’ speech prompted gun-advocacy group Wyoming Gun Owners, which is helmed by political activist Aaron Dorr, to thank him on its Facebook page.

“Folks, you can believe us or not, but Democrat Senator Chris Rothfuss did as many as anyone to help pass SAPA on the concurrence vote tonight!” says the post. “His explanation of the bill and his understanding of the 2nd and 10th Amendment is unlike any Democrat we’ve ever seen.”

The SAPA bill drew bipartisan support in the statehouse, but it also garnered opposition from every sheriff in the state. Sweetwater County Sheriff John Grossnickle warned that the legislation could serve as a Trojan horse to benefit the federal government. 

Grossnickle refused to enforce state mask mandates during COVID. He announced during the Biden administration that he’d refuse to implement an early and broad-reaching version of a land use plan the U.S. Bureau of Land Management proposed.  

To Grossnickle, the Second Amendment Protection Act doesn’t help him oppose a future tyrannical government, it impedes him.

“This (bill), in my eyes, allows the federal government to come into the state of Wyoming — in particular the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) — and do whatever they want without any oversight or any local control,” said Grossnickle.

Under current law, police departments and sheriffs offices in the state are already prohibited from using local or state funds to enforce laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, and any officer who violates that prohibition is subject to misdemeanor charges. The amendments adopted by the legislature this session would expand that prohibition and bar law enforcement agencies in the state from using any funds to aid federal officials in enforcing laws “solely regarding firearms, accessories or ammunition against any law abiding citizen.”

In other words, local officers could not enforce the federal ban on domestic violence convicts having guns.

The bill carves out illegal aliens from its protections so that local officers could enforce federal gun laws against them.

It would bar all state and local law enforcement agencies from hiring any federal agent who has enforced federal gun laws, and fine them $50,000 for each agent.

Any “interested party” could bring a lawsuit against agencies that enforce or help enforce federal gun laws.

The bill has other carveouts to protect officers who help federal officers with pursuits linked to other states, involving people from out of state; to protect officers who help federal agents enforce drug crimes or weapons violations that are captured by Wyoming law.

I’m not convinced that the bill would really have prevented police from enforcing the federal ban on those convicted of domestic violence from having guns, given that they’re not really “law abiding citizens,” but I can understand why sheriffs and police chiefs were opposed to the prohibition on hiring former federal agents who have enforced federal gun laws in the past, especially given the trouble that departments around the country are having in hiring and retaining officers. 

I don’t take issue with prohibiting state and local law enforcement from aiding federal officials in enforcing gun control laws when there is no underlying crime of violence or the alleged violation of federal gun law is the sole or primary purpose for a federal investigation, and if that’s all the SAPA amendments did I suspect that the legislation might have garnered the support of sheriffs… and maybe even the governor as well. Written as broadly as it is, though, the legislation would almost certainly come with unintended consequences if it becomes law through a veto override, including legal challenges by cities, counties, and applicants to law enforcement agencies who were denied employment because of their previous work for the federal government.