Wyoming Representative Allen Jaggi HB 95 firearms freedom act with “teeth”

Hot on the heels of Utah the Cowboy State looks to wrestle the steer that is the Federal Government. This is about States Rights, pure and simple!



HB 95 Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act -2

Don’t be confused by similar legislation, Miller HB 28 just doesn’t go far enough.

To see a comparison between HB 28 and HB 95  click here you will see Representative Jaggi (pronounced Ya-Gee) has introduced legislation with “real teeth”.

“As gun guy and someone that believes the federal government is out of control, I wanted to introduce legislation fitting to Wyoming” said Representative Allen Jaggi.

HB 95 Wyoming Firearm Freedom Act – 2 click here

This legislation is a combination of Alaska and New Hampshire’s Firearms Freedom Act containing both a penalties clause like New Hampshire as well as a defense clause like Alaska.

HB 95 has strong “Legislative findings and declarations of authority”. Also it amends the preemption to say “no other entity”, in essence backing up this legislation with law.

Email your legislator–
Place the following in subject line  – “YES on Jaggi HB 95 Firearms Freedom Act-2″

Join WyGO Today – Wyoming’s Fastest Growing Gun Rights Organization

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Wyoming Representative Allen Jaggi HB 95 firearms freedom act with “teeth””

  1. Max Louderback Says:

    It is about time we pass a law like bill 95. I was traveling from KC back home to WY after visiting my mother. I was stopped by the Nebraska Highway Patrol, I was asked if I had any drugs or firearms, I told the officer I had a 38 special under the seat. I told the officer I forgot to put it back on the dash after my last stop for gas, I do not leave my gun in sight when I leave the truck. I then asked the officer if he carried a gun when he traveled, he answered yes but I don’t conceal it. I don’t see the difference if I had a mind to use it, it would not make a difference if it was in sight or concealed. As a result I was taken to jail had to post a $1,000.00 bond then go back to NE for court and pay a $300.00 fine. I did get my hand gun back and $700.00 of my bond back. What a bunch of B.S. Max, Green River


    • Patrick Sperry Says:

      I hear you Max, and your story is just one of many that follow that line. Get this, my brother in law some years back was stopped at the California Border Check that was originally set up to stop contaminated fruits and vegetables from coming into the state. He was asked the same thing, only with fruit and veggies added. he answered yes, he had his 357 revolver, and some medication. Well, to make a long story short, he spent four days in jail on felony charges till he saw a Judge…

      Go figure!


  2. Hey Bly!! Would you ever even consider this? « Interned In Northfield Says:

    […] Hey Bly!! Would you ever even consider this? 12 02 2010 Or are one of those whom think guns kill? Probably as we know you think BIG Government is good! Hot on the heels of Utah the Cowboy State looks to wrestle the steer that is the Federal Government…. […]


  3. Stephen J. Walls Says:

    It would please me immensely if lines #20-22 were changed from:

    20 (ii) “Firearm” means any weapon which will or is
    21 designed to expel a projectile by the action of an
    22 explosive;

    were changed to:

    20 (ii) Firearm” means any mechanical device which will or is
    21 designed to expel a projectile by the action of an
    22 propellant;

    Firearms are not weapons until intended by an individual to be used as such.
    Cartridge (Bullet)(Smokeless) powder is not an “Explosive”, it is however a propellant.
    “Black Powder” is an “Explosive” and Black Powder firearms are already excluded by Federal law.



  4. Stephen J. Walls Says:

    The previous is in reference to



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: