Wyoming

Constitution of the State of Wyoming - Wyo. Const. Art. I, § 24

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be denied."

Wyoming's firearm law history has been characterized by a strong commitment to gun rights, rooted in its culture and the Second Amendment. Key developments include the passage of the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act in 2010, which sought to assert state authority over firearms made and sold within Wyoming, challenging federal regulations. The state has also adopted a "Permitless Carry" law, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms without a permit. Significant legal cases, such as Wyoming v. State (2012), have upheld the rights of citizens to bear arms, reinforcing the legal framework protecting firearm ownership. Additionally, Wyoming has a rich tradition of hunting and outdoor activities, further cementing its reputation as a pro-firearm state, where laws reflect a commitment to individual rights and responsible gun ownership.

The history of concealed firearm permits in Wyoming has seen significant developments over the years. In 1995, Wyoming established its first concealed carry permit law, allowing residents to apply for permits after completing a background check and a safety course. In 2011, the law was amended to allow for "Constitutional Carry," enabling law-abiding citizens aged 21 and older to carry concealed firearms without a permit, reflecting the state's strong support for individual gun rights. The permit system remains in place for those who choose to obtain one, particularly for those wishing to carry in other states that recognize Wyoming permits. Over the years, legislative adjustments have focused on simplifying the application process and expanding recognition of Wyoming permits across state lines, highlighting the state's ongoing commitment to firearm rights and personal safety.

The terms “constitutional carry” and “permitless carry” refer to states that have laws allowing individuals to carry a loaded firearm in public without requiring a license or permit.

Effective July 1, 2021, any person, resident or non-resident of Wyoming, may carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Prior to this date, permitless carry only applied to Wyoming residents.

Reciprocity refers to an agreement between states to recognize, or honor, a concealed firearm permit issued by another state.

When you are in another state, you are subject to that state’s laws. Even if a state recognizes your carry permit or allows for permitless carry, the state may have additional restrictions on certain types of firearms, magazines, or ammunition. Take time to learn the law!

Recognizes a Wyoming CFP or does not require a license

Recognizes Wyoming Resident CFP only

Does not recognize a Wyoming CFP

Permitless Carry State

State firearm preemption laws are statutes that prevent local governments from enacting or enforcing their own gun regulations that are more restrictive than state law. These laws ensure that firearm regulations remain consistent across the state, preventing a patchwork of different rules in various cities or counties.

When buying or selling a firearm, both federal and state laws must be followed. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5), a private party may sell a firearm to a resident of the same state if two conditions are met: (1) the seller and buyer must be residents of the same state, and (2) the seller must not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Additionally, a private seller may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any state for temporary lawful sporting use, provided they meet the same condition of not knowing or having reason to believe the borrower is prohibited under federal law.

In addition to federal law, state laws governing firearm sales must also be followed, as states may impose additional restrictions such as background checks, waiting periods, or bans on specific types of firearms.

Regulation by state of firearms, firearms accessories, ammunition and antique firearms manufactured in Wyoming; exceptions.
(a) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming is not subject to federal law, federal taxation or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the Wyoming legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured in Wyoming from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state or foreign country. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, and their importation into Wyoming and incorporation into a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in Wyoming does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by Wyoming legislature that basic industrial materials, such as, but not limited to, polymers, unmachined metal, ferrous or nonferrous, bar stock, ingots or forgings and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition. The authority of the United States congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made within Wyoming borders from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Wyoming from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because the firearm accessory is attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Wyoming.
(b) A firearm manufactured or sold in Wyoming under this act shall have the words, "made in Wyoming" clearly stamped, inscribed or otherwise marked on a central part of the firearm, such as the receiver or frame.
WY. Stat. § 6-8-404

Magazine capacity laws are designed to limit the number of rounds a firearm's magazine can hold, typically restricting it to a certain number of cartridges (e.g., 10 rounds or fewer). Some state laws restrict the amount of rounds that may be placed in a magazine at any given time, while others prevent the mere possession of unloaded magazines capable of accepting more than a certain number of rounds.

Carrying a firearm into a place where firearms are prohibited by state or federal law is a common way for gun owners to find themselves in legal trouble. These places are known as “prohibited areas,” and they can vary greatly from state to state.

Below you will find the list of the places where firearms are prohibited under this state’s laws. Keep in mind, in addition to these state prohibited areas, federal law adds additional places where firearms are prohibited. See the federal law section for a list of federal prohibited areas.

Open carry and concealed carry refer to two distinct methods of carrying firearms in public. Open carry involves visibly carrying a firearm, typically in a holster, where it is easily seen by others. Concealed carry, on the other hand, involves carrying a firearm in a hidden manner, such as under clothing, so that it is not visible to others.

No weapons" signs are notices posted by businesses or private property owners indicating that firearms or other weapons are not allowed on the premises. The legal impact of these signs varies by state. In some states, these signs have the force of law, meaning that if a person carries a weapon onto the property in violation of the sign, they can face criminal penalties such as fines or arrest. In these states, ignoring a "no weapons" sign can result in legal consequences similar to trespassing.

In other states, however, these signs are merely a business's policy, and while a person carrying a weapon might be asked to leave, there are no legal penalties for entering with a weapon unless they refuse to leave when asked, at which point trespassing laws may apply.

Most, but not all, states have laws in place that regulate possessing firearms while intoxicated, and individual states will define "intoxicated" differently. In addition to state law, federal law also prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as defined by the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). There are five different schedules of controlled substances regulated by the CSA, scheduled as I–V. The types of drugs that are regulated range from heroin as a Schedule I substance, to Robitussin AC as a Schedule V substance. Even a gun owner that is prescribed a scheduled drug by a physician can be in legal jeopardy if it is proven that the drug was taken in a frequency or manner other than was prescribed.

Although legal for medicinal or recreational use in many states, marijuana remains classified as a scheduled controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), codified as 21 U.S.C. § 812. On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice published a proposed rule change that would reclassify marijuana from schedule I to a schedule III drug. It is anticipated this rescheduling will formally occur in 2024 or 2025. Unlike schedule I drugs, schedule III drugs may be lawfully prescribed by a licensed physician, and thus the possession of these prescribed drugs does not make the possession of a firearm inherently unlawful the way possession of a schedule I substance would. This means that the rescheduling of marijuana to a schedule III drug would finally allow for the lawful use, possession and purchase of firearms by prescription marijuana users. However, if it is determined that the marijuana is possessed without a prescription, is used in a manner that is not prescribed, or that the individual with the prescription is addicted to marijuana, possession of a firearm would still be a federal offense. Federal law states that a person is addicted to a controlled substance when they have “lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician.”  27 C.F.R. § 478.11, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) 

No weapons" signs are notices posted by businesses or private property owners indicating that firearms or other weapons are not allowed on the premises. The legal impact of these signs varies by state. In some states, these signs have the force of law, meaning that if a person carries a weapon onto the property in violation of the sign, they can face criminal penalties such as fines or arrest. In these states, ignoring a "no weapons" sign can result in legal consequences similar to trespassing.

In other states, however, these signs are merely a business's policy, and while a person carrying a weapon might be asked to leave, there are no legal penalties for entering with a weapon unless they refuse to leave when asked, at which point trespassing laws may apply.

Some states have laws that require gun owners to take specific measures to secure their firearms, especially in households with children. Many of these state laws mandate that guns be stored in locked containers or safes when not in use. These laws often impose penalties for failing to secure firearms, particularly if they are accessed by unauthorized individuals, such as minors.

Some states impose a legal duty upon permit holders that requires them to inform a police officer of the presence of a firearm whenever they have an official encounter, such as a traffic stop. These states are called “duty to inform” states. In these states you are required by law to immediately, and affirmatively, tell a police officer if you have a firearm in your possession.

In addition to “duty to inform states,” some states have “quasi duty to inform” laws. These laws generally require that a permit holder have his/her permit in their possession and surrender it upon the request of an officer. The specific requirements of these laws will vary from state to state.

The final category of states is classified as “no duty to inform” states. In these states there are no laws that require a gun owner to affirmatively inform an officer if they have a firearm. Additionally, there are also generally no laws that require you to respond or provide a permit if asked about the presence of a firearm.

Wyoming is a quasi duty-to-inform state. A permit holder is not required to voluntarily inform a peace officer of his or her permit, but must display the permit and proper identification upon request of the officer.

Emergency Risk Orders (or "Red Flag Laws") enable rapid legal action when someone is believed to be at significant risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm. Generally speaking, these controversial laws allow law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily confiscate firearms from the individual and prevent them from purchasing new ones while the order is in effect. The most robust laws also permit family members and others to file petitions.

The legal use of force, including deadly force, is regulated by state law. There are no federal laws that dictate when you can use force in self-defense in all states. As such, it is essential to become familiar with individual state laws.

The term "castle doctrine" comes from English common law providing that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, from which one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and in which one may do so without fear of prosecution.

Many states have instituted castle doctrine laws, with varying degrees of formality. Some states have statutorily enacted castle doctrine laws, some have judicially-created protections (called “common laws”), while others have no amplified protections in the home at all.

Generally speaking, the use of deadly force is limited to circumstances that reasonably present an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death of a human being. As such, using deadly force in defense of mere personal property is almost categorically prohibited. Although most states will allow the use of some amount of force (i.e. physically restraining someone until the police arrive), the use or threatened use of deadly force in defense of mere property is generally not permitted.

Wyoming law allows a person to use reasonable force that a reasonable person would judge necessary to prevent loss. However, deadly force may only be used if necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury to a person.

A duty to retreat is an obligation to flee that is imposed upon a civilian who is under attack. If applicable, it applies to the victim of unlawful force prior to their ability to use deadly force to defend him or herself. The duty to retreat makes self-defense unavailable to those who use deadly force when they could have retreated from the confrontation safely. The alternative to duty-to-retreat laws is no-duty-to-retreat laws or stand-your-ground laws as they’re commonly called. Stand-your-ground states impose no duty to flee upon victims and instead state that one can stand their ground and meet force with force, under certain situations.

Vehicle Transport & Storage case:

State of Wyoming v. Crowley, Seventh Judicial District Natrona County, 2024

Jashawn Michael Lee Crowley, 27, of Casper, Wyoming, was sentenced to 115 months’ imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm. He was ordered to serve his sentence consecutive to the 7-to-10-year sentence imposed in State of Wyoming v. Crowley, docket number 23167-C and 23168-C for theft, conspiracy to commit theft, conspiracy to commit forgery, eluding, property destruction, and interference and concurrent to his 8-to-10-year sentence in State of Wyoming v. Crowley, docket number 2315, for auto burglary, theft, and aggravated eluding.

According to court documents, on March 17, 2023, the defendant was pulled over in Casper during a traffic stop and had in his possession a 9mm Sig Sauer handgun. Crowley had an extensive criminal history, including at least two prior convictions for drug felonies and knew he was not allowed to possess a firearm. The defendant also acknowledged the firearm he possessed was stolen, not manufactured in Wyoming, and traveled across state lines to enter his possession.
Crowley was indicted on May 10, 2023, and pleaded guilty on July 12, 2024. Chief U.S. District Court Judge Scott W. Skavdahl imposed the sentence on Oct. 3. This crime was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, and the Casper Police Department. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christyne M. Martens.

Controlled Substance case:

Hagen v. The State of Wyoming, Supreme Court, State of Wyoming, 2025 WY 22

Cameron Curtis Hagen was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a cracked windshield in Casper, Wyoming. During a search prompted by a canine alert, officers found controlled substances and a pistol. Hagen was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He initially pled not guilty but later entered no contest pleas to the drug and firearm charges as part of a plea agreement, with the State recommending concurrent sentences.

The District Court of Converse County accepted Hagen's no contest pleas and ordered a Presentence Investigation Report (PSI). At sentencing, Hagen objected to details in the PSI's criminal history section, arguing they were improperly sourced from prior PSIs and police reports, contrary to the Wyoming Criminal History Record Act. The district court took his objections under advisement but did not strike the contested details, stating it would not consider them in determining his sentence. Hagen was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months and one to three years, consistent with the plea agreement.

The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court committed plain error by instructing the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon. The court held that the instruction was proper and did not violate any clear and unequivocal rule of law. The instruction was consistent with Wyoming precedent, which allows for permissive inference instructions if they are not mandatory and the state still bears the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the connection between the use of a deadly weapon and the inference of malice was justified by the facts of the case. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Hayes' conviction.

Self-Defense case:

Tatman v. Cordingly, Wyoming Supreme Court, 672 P.2d 1286 (1983)

E. Ben Tatman (plaintiff) had a disagreement with Gary L. Cordingly (defendant) that resulted in a violent altercation. Tatman used his pickup truck to run over Cordingly’s motorcycle, and Tatman was the first to strike a blow in their violent brawl. Tatman tried to get to his rifle, causing Cordingly to believe that his life was in danger. Tatman had to be hospitalized for eight days as a result of injuries sustained in the fight. Tatman sued Cordingly for assault and battery. The jury was given instructions on Wyoming law regarding the limits of self-defense. Specifically, the jury was instructed that a person threatened with a battery has the right to protect himself against the threatened attack, real or not, so long as he believed it to be real. Also, a person may establish the defense of self-defense if he reasonably believed that he must use force to protect himself and used no more force than reasonable to protect himself. Finally, the privilege of self-defense ends once the attacker is disarmed or the danger has passed. A jury found that Tatman committed a battery, and Cordingly acted in self-defense. Tatman appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict, and that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury.

Duty to Retreat case:

Haire v. The State of Wyoming, 2017 WY 48, The Supreme Court, State of Wyoming

Appellant Anthony D. Haire shot and killed a man, but claimed he did so in self-defense. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment, and a jury found him guilty on both counts. He raises two issues as to the jury instructions on self-defense. First, he contends that the district court erred in failing to give the jury a requested castle doctrine instruction, which would have said that a person has no duty to retreat in his home even if he could safely do so. Second, Appellant asserts the district court committed plain error when it gave an instruction informing the jury that he had a duty to retreat before using deadly force.

Murder case:

State v. John, 2020 Wyo. LEXIS 48 (WY Sup. Ct. 2020)

In August 2018, the State charged Jason Tsosie John with one count of first-degree murder. The district court dismissed the case under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602(f), which the legislature had only recently added to the self-defense statutes. 2018 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 135 (amending Wyoming Statute §§ 6-1-204 and 6-2-602). Subsection (f) states “[a] person who uses reasonable defensive force as defined by subsection (a) of this section shall not be criminally prosecuted for that use of reasonable defensive force.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602(f) (LexisNexis 2019). We granted the State’s petition for writ of review to address several matters of first impression regarding the statute’s meaning and application. We conclude § 6-2-602(f) is a mandatory immunity provision carrying with it a judicial gatekeeping function following the preliminary hearing. The accused must present a prima facie showing that § 6-2-602(f) applies. If the accused satisfies this minimal burden, the burden shifts to the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that § 6-2-602(f) does not apply. Though the district court applied a different burden and standard when adjudicating Mr. John’s motion to dismiss, its error was harmless, and we affirm.