Casper to amend council "gun‑free" rules after state concealed‑carry law; staff to draft screening policy

City Attorney Eric told the Casper City Council that House Bill 172, which takes effect July 1, expands where lawfully concealed firearms may be carried and will likely preempt the city’s current ban on firearms at city meetings, prompting council direction to staff to prepare changes to local rules.

"By way of background, on July first of this year, House Bill 172 will become effective," Eric said. He described the statute (identified in the packet as Wyoming statute 6‑8‑105) as allowing people who are lawfully carrying concealed weapons to bring them into meetings of public entities and many public buildings, subject to statutory exceptions. Eric told council that the city’s ordinance 9.44.0.02, which broadly prohibits deadly weapons at city meetings, would be preempted as to lawfully concealed firearms and recommended an amendment to carve out lawfully concealed firearms as defined by state law.

Council members and staff discussed three core issues: (1) how to amend the ordinance so it does not conflict with state law, (2) whether and how to continue security screening at council meetings, and (3) how to handle other city facilities (for example, recreation centers, the event center and the municipal golf course) where alcohol is served or where children or untrained staff are present.

Eric summarized how the statute defines lawful carriage: people may carry if they have a Wyoming concealed‑carry permit, if they hold a reciprocal permit from another state, or if they meet specified statutory criteria (referenced in the packet as statute 6‑8‑104(b). He also noted statutory exclusions — for example, courts, jails and police stations and facilities where alcohol is served are treated differently under the statute.

Chief Cheney told council that he supports continuing security screening for council meetings and recommended voluntary verification steps and signage. "If you're gonna do this, we ask that you get voluntary compliance," he said, describing options such as asking for a concealed‑carry permit at the door or accepting a signed affidavit from a person asserting they meet the statutory criteria.

Council debated how strict any at‑door verification should be. Some members favored a short written acknowledgement for people who do not have a permit; others worried a signature log would be unnecessarily intrusive and slow entry. Eric urged a practical approach aimed at giving reasonable notice to attendees while avoiding procedures that could exceed local authority or create confrontation.

On facility policy, staff and the police recommended a single citywide resolution setting baseline rules for all city buildings and tailoring specific facility rules where necessary. They said the city may lawfully prohibit firearms where alcohol is served (for example municipal venues with a liquor license) but that recreation facilities present unique challenges because front‑desk staff or youth programs are not staffed by sworn officers and the city should not expect untrained, often young employees to enforce complex vetting.

Council gave staff direction to prepare draft ordinance language to conform with the statute, to amend resolution 22‑37 regarding screenings, and to produce a citywide policy for city facilities. They asked staff to consult with the district attorney on legal risks and to return drafts at the next work session with a special meeting the same night for council consideration of an amended resolution.

Ending

Staff will return with draft ordinance and resolution amendments and a recommended screening and facility policy for council review at the next work session; staff will consult the district attorney and the police department on implementation details and liability concerns.