Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Security Immunity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes bill extending legal immunity to state military security personnel
Summary
Senate File 26, described by sponsors as extending liability protections to state security forces when protecting military assets, passed third reading on Jan. 24 by voice and roll call; senators debated scope and whether immunity aligns with federal status of National Guard personnel.
CHEYENNE — The Wyoming Senate on Jan. 24 passed Senate File 26, a transportation‑committee bill that extends specified immunity when state security personnel perform duties protecting military equipment and critical assets.
Supporters told the Senate the measure clarifies and extends protections for state security officers who perform duties similar to National Guard security forces. Senator Bonar, answering earlier committee questions on the floor, described those officers as trained security personnel who may serve in differing statuses (federal Title 32 or Title 10) and said the bill ensures consistent protections when they perform covered duties.
Senator Pappas added that National Guard members sometimes perform the same tasks under different legal statuses and that those who are not in federal status at the time of an incident do not today have the same immunity as when activated; the bill would align protections for those performing critical‑asset security work.
Following floor discussion, the Senate took a recorded roll‑call vote on third reading. The chief clerk announced the result as 30 ayes and 1 excused; the bill was declared passed and will proceed to the next steps for enactment.
Why it matters: Sponsors said the bill eliminates a legal gap that can leave state security personnel exposed when performing duties required by the Wyoming Military Department; proponents said the change is administrative and targeted to personnel already trained for the role.
Next steps: The bill will proceed following passage by the Senate; sponsors said it is intended to provide consistent legal protections when state security officers are engaged in duties that may legally authorize the use of force in defense of critical state military assets.
