Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: HB 113

  1. #1
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Heads up!

    It looks like Alaska "type" carry is headed to Wyoming, but it only applies to those who have been living in the state for 6+ months.

    Here it is from NRA-ILA
    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13388

    AP release
    http://cbs4denver.com/wireapnewswy/B...2.1489346.html

    AP needs to do a better job of checking their facts. :quirky

    A better report...
    http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-r...f4de7f287.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Trying to get the clause that allows (what is in the video)removed before endorsing this legislation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swV_eOrAp9Y

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    Look like a a good law, but Wyoming puts strange time limits on gun owners.

    I remember when I moved there, I went to buy a new pistol to celebrate and when I got there they told me I had to be a WY resident for at least a year.

    This was at Frontier Arms in Cheyenne.

    I have never heard of anything so strange. What would it matter how long I lived there and as long as I passed the background check and had a valid WY license and residence.
    I dont get it.

    Same goes for this law and the 6 month requirement.



    .
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    Wyoming has no restrictions on how long one must live in the state to buy a firearm. A valid drivers license is all it takes.

    They do however have restrictions on how long one must be a resident to buy resident hunting licenses, which is one year as actually living in the state.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    Paladin wrote:
    Wyoming has no restrictions on how long one must live in the state to buy a firearm. A valid drivers license is all it takes.

    They do however have restrictions on how long one must be a resident to buy resident hunting licenses, which is one year as actually living in the state.
    Huh....

    Now that makes me a little pissed. I dont know why they would have told me that.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403

    Post imported post

    Because Fromtier Arms is NOT the best place in Cheyenne to do business.

    In fact my shadow never crosses their door.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    MatieA wrote:
    Because Fromtier Arms is NOT the best place in Cheyenne to do business.

    In fact my shadow never crosses their door.
    They must be bad.

    Im a clean cut, respectable guy. I have no idea why they would have flat out lied to me like that.
    Really makes me pissed. And what business man doesn't want to sell a product for god sakes?

    Ah well, if I move back to WY (hope so) I wont ever go there again.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Sig229 wrote:
    MatieA wrote:
    Because Fromtier Arms is NOT the best place in Cheyenne to do business.

    In fact my shadow never crosses their door.
    They must be bad.

    Im a clean cut, respectable guy. I have no idea why they would have flat out lied to me like that.
    Really makes me pissed. And what business man doesn't want to sell a product for god sakes?

    Ah well, if I move back to WY (hope so) I wont ever go there again.
    I have never had a problem with them. They also seem to be alot cheeper than the other gun stores here.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403

    Post imported post

    I have never recieved anything but bad attitude and next to NO service. I take my business elsewhere even if it might cost me a bit more.

    This is all my personal experience and feelings though, if you've never had a problem then that is good.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I have never had a problem at any of the gun shops here. However some of the prices are outragous at some of them. The service at the three i go to all the time is always good. I am sorry you have had bad experiences with them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403

    Post imported post

    I do most of my shopping at Marv's Other Place, or Guns N Gear
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Those are the other two I go to.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    469

    Post imported post

    marvs is a good place with some really nice people while guns and gear are not any better than fromtier arms (expensive and rude) the last couple times I was in guns and gear store were not only rude but ignored me standing at the counter in front of the pistol display while one guy just a few feet down was stuffing his face. he did not even acknowledge me standing at the counter after looking at me but kept on eating.

    then they were rude all except the lady but she kept refering to the guy who ignored me in the first place.

    rly enterprise is not bad but a tad expensive

    i will keep dealing with marvs as at least they have the worst coffee in town for free and are nice and polite. can order anything over the web and have it shiped to them and they smile and are happy to have you as a customer.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    469

    Post imported post

    status of this bill and the other two

  15. #15
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post




    Great News...your grassroots efforts have payed off.

    HB-28 was tabled and committee moved forward with HB-95.

    HB-95 Jaggi Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act-2
    Passed!!! with a vote of 8 to 0, 1 excused.

    Also HB-113 Concealed Weapon Authority
    Passed 6 to 2, 1 excused.

    This means we made it past the first hurdle,these bills moved out of the Judiciary Committee and are on their way to the floor.

    We will see if the Committee members will stand with the bills and voteyeson the floor.

    HB-95 would have never made it this far without you, but remember the fight has just started. We will keep you abreast as these two bills move forward.


    [/i][/b]

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    It appears to me that HB 113 violates the Privileges & Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution by limiting the right to carry without a permit only to Wyoming residents of more than 6 months (proposed Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-105(a)(vi), page 3, lines 4-6).

    The Article IV Privileges & Immunities Clause means "that in any state every citizen of any other state is to have the same privileges and immunities which the citizens of that state enjoy. This section, in effect, prevents a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own.” Hague v. Committee for Indus. Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939)."A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are ‘substantial,’ and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to those reasons."Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 (1985). Therefore, a state may not restrict licensure to state citizens to partake in a privilege,id. (“We conclude that New Hampshire’s bar residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The nonresident’s interest in practicing law is a ‘privilege’ protected by the Clause. Although the lawyer is ‘an officer of the court,’ he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a ‘full-fledged member of the political community.’ ”), nor may a state otherwise deny to nonresidents a privilege granted to its citizens even absent a licensing scheme.Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194, 201-02 (3rd Cir. 2006) (“Pursuant to Article IV, section 2, a state may not discriminate against noncitizens with respect to any protected right unless the state has a substantial reason for the discriminatory policy that bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objectives. Delaware’s public records law discriminates on its face between citizens and noncitizens. Although the State has a substantial interest in ‘defining its political community,’ the citizens-only provision of its public records law does not bear a substantial relationship to that interest. Accordingly, we conclude that the provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Lee and enjoining Delaware from limiting FOIA benefits to Delaware citizens.”). However, a state may discriminate where the state granted privilege is discretionary and the state asserts a cognizable and substantial reason to discriminate where the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to that reason. Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 95 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“Privileges and Immunities Clause cannot preclude New York’s residency requirement in light of the State’s substantial interest in monitoring handgun licensees.”).

    HB 113 should be amended toeliminate the residency requirement.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    It appears to me that HB 113 violates the Privileges & Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution by limiting the right to carry without a permit only to Wyoming residents of more than 6 months (proposed Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-105(a)(vi), page 3, lines 4-6).

    The Article IV Privileges & Immunities Clause means "that in any state every citizen of any other state is to have the same privileges and immunities which the citizens of that state enjoy. This section, in effect, prevents a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own.” Hague v. Committee for Indus. Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939)."A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are ‘substantial,’ and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to those reasons."Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 (1985). Therefore, a state may not restrict licensure to state citizens to partake in a privilege,id. (“We conclude that New Hampshire’s bar residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The nonresident’s interest in practicing law is a ‘privilege’ protected by the Clause. Although the lawyer is ‘an officer of the court,’ he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a ‘full-fledged member of the political community.’ ”), nor may a state otherwise deny to nonresidents a privilege granted to its citizens even absent a licensing scheme.Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194, 201-02 (3rd Cir. 2006) (“Pursuant to Article IV, section 2, a state may not discriminate against noncitizens with respect to any protected right unless the state has a substantial reason for the discriminatory policy that bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objectives. Delaware’s public records law discriminates on its face between citizens and noncitizens. Although the State has a substantial interest in ‘defining its political community,’ the citizens-only provision of its public records law does not bear a substantial relationship to that interest. Accordingly, we conclude that the provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Lee and enjoining Delaware from limiting FOIA benefits to Delaware citizens.”). However, a state may discriminate where the state granted privilege is discretionary and the state asserts a cognizable and substantial reason to discriminate where the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to that reason. Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 95 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“Privileges and Immunities Clause cannot preclude New York’s residency requirement in light of the State’s substantial interest in monitoring handgun licensees.”).

    HB 113 should be amended toeliminate the residency requirement.
    So what you are saying is more than a few states have unconstitutional laws because they requre you to be a resident. One example being CC licensing.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    We got out the vote so to speak. We contacted alot of people and let them know what was going on and how they could get involved and it worked. Now we may be seeing, from what I understand, an attempt to table the legislation. It would , from my understanding, just set and not ever be brought out for a vote. Let's not give up on this thing. We need to keep contacting our legislators and let them know we want this fine piece of legislation passed as is.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    I can't speak for WVCDL, but basically if WY allows unlicensed CC/OC, then anyone in the state must be allowed the same(visitors or new residents).

    The CC permit system as it stands now is not necessarily unconstitutional, but there would need to be some avenue for non-residents and new residents to carry there, whether it be through reciprocity or non-resident permits. That's why I would guess states like CA have a big problem for these reasons:they are "may-issue", they don't allow any LOADED unlicensed carry, they don't recognize any non-CA permits, and don't issue permits to non-residents. Same goes for NY.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    press1280 wrote:
    I can't speak for WVCDL, but basically if WY allows unlicensed CC/OC, then anyone in the state must be allowed the same(visitors or new residents).
    That's correct. That's why I said above that the language in HB 113 limiting unlicensed CC to residents of more than 6 months needs to be stricken.

    press1280 wrote:
    The CC permit system as it stands now is not necessarily unconstitutional, but there would need to be some avenue for non-residents and new residents to carry there, whether it be through reciprocity or non-resident permits. That's why I would guess states like CA have a big problem for these reasons:they are "may-issue", they don't allow any LOADED unlicensed carry, they don't recognize any non-CA permits, and don't issue permits to non-residents. Same goes for NY.
    At this time, I won't press the issue of whether Wyoming should issue permits to nonresidents.

    As a matter of state law, Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-104(b)(i), provides, in part, that "[t]he Wyoming residency requirements of this paragraph do not apply to any person who holds a valid permit authorizing him to carry a concealed firearm authorized and issued by a governmental agency or entity in another state that recognizes Wyoming permits, is a valid statewide permit, and the state has laws similar to the provisions of this section, as determined by the attorney general, including a proper background check of the permit holder[.]" (Note: SF 26, as amended and passed by the Senate, eliminates the licensing standards test in both the reciprocity provision of Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-104(a)(iii) and the residency qualification for a permit under Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-104(b)(i)). I read Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-104(b)(i) to provide shall-issue for both new residents and nonresidents as long as they have a reciprocal state's permit, but this interpretation is muddled by the fact that section also provides for application through the sheriff of the applicant's county of residence.

    There may still be aPrivileges & Immunities Clauseargument for individuals who do not have a reciprocal state's permit--or all nonresidents and new residents if Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-104(b)(i) is not interpreted to provide a mechanism for shall-issue for nonresidents and new residents who have a reciprocal state's permit.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-r...5a5c9fa35.html

    [quote]CHEYENNE -- The Wyoming House of Representatives on Monday passed legislation under which a permit would no longer be required to carry a concealed weapon in Wyoming.

    If passed, Wyoming would become the third state, after Alaska and Vermont, to allow conceal-carry without a permit.

    The bill, House Bill 113, passed 42-15. It now advances to the Senate, where it will be taken up as soon as the end of the week. But although the bill has Senate sponsors, Senate Majority Leader Jim Anderson, R-Glenrock, said the proposal will "probably be received with more scrutiny on the Senate side" than in the House.

    Under the bill, anyone who meets the current requirements to obtain a concealed-weapons permit from the state would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon -- except that proof of firearms training would no longer be required.

    If the legislation passes, Wyoming would still issue concealed-weapons permits to residents, as such permits are needed for Wyoming residents to carry a concealed weapon in several other states.

    State Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, the Thermopolis Republican who sponsored the bill, said the legislation asserts Wyoming residents' Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    "It's sad when law-abiding citizens have to get permission -- have to get permission, have to get the permit -- from the government," Quarberg said. "There's just something inherently wrong with that whole philosophy of the role the government should play in our lives."

    Opponents said that the permit system helps weed out those who shouldn't be carrying concealed weapons. Law-abiding citizens, they said, have few problems being able to get a concealed weapons permit under the current system.

    Anderson said following concerns expressed by law enforcement officials and others, there will likely be attempts in the Senate to restore some firearms training requirements and lengthen the six-month residency requirement in the bill. Senators will also likely try to merge HB113 with a second concealed-weapons bill in the Senate that attempts to clarify Wyoming law dealing with reciprocity with other states, he said.

    If those issues are addressed, and the two bills are merged, "we'll come forth with something that will be acceptable," Anderson said.

    Contact capital bureau reporter Jeremy Pelzer at 307-632-1244 or jeremy.pelzer@trib.com. Read more about Wyoming politics and government at

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Constitutional Carry appears to be dead. The switchboard operator for the Senate in Cheyenne says the bill did not make it out of committee. Here are the names of the senators in the Judiciary comm. that the bill was assigned to. Tony Ross R- Cheyenne.( I believe he was a co-sponsor of the bill) Bruce Berns R- Sheridan, Saundra Meyer D- Evanston, Drew Perkins R- Casper, Kathryn Sessions D- Cheyenne. I think we need to do two things in respsonse to this bill being killed. First we need to contact these senators and find out which ones were responsible for the bill not getting out of committee and then help them OUT of office. Second we need to respond with Open Carry whenever we can as an exercise of our rights. A strong showing of Bearing Arms is going to be necessary to maintain our freedom in Wyoming. We need to put the legislators on notice that they work for us. The bill overwhelmingly passed out of the House. It shows very strong support by the people. Yet it was not even allowed out oc committee. We need to stay involved to keep the legislators feet to the fire.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Wyocowboy wrote:
    Constitutional Carry appears to be dead. The switchboard operator for the Senate in Cheyenne says the bill did not make it out of committee. Here are the names of the senators in the Judiciary comm. that the bill was assigned to. Tony Ross R- Cheyenne. ( I believe he was a co-sponsor of the bill) Bruce Berns R- Sheridan, Saundra Meyer D- Evanston, Drew Perkins R- Casper, Kathryn Sessions D- Cheyenne. I think we need to do two things in respsonse to this bill being killed. First we need to contact these senators and find out which ones were responsible for the bill not getting out of committee and then help them OUT of office. Second we need to respond with Open Carry whenever we can as an exercise of our rights. A strong showing of Bearing Arms is going to be necessary to maintain our freedom in Wyoming. We need to put the legislators on notice that they work for us. The bill overwhelmingly passed out of the House. It shows very strong support by the people. Yet it was not even allowed out oc committee. We need to stay involved to keep the legislators feet to the fire.
    is it still in committee being descused or is it dead?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    According to what I have been told. The committee will not hear it, which in effect kills it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •