Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laramie County adopts employee concealed‑carry policy; open‑carry resolution postponed after public concerns
Summary
The Laramie County Board of Commissioners adopted an employee concealed‑carry policy in response to state law changes but postponed a separate resolution to ban open carry in county buildings after residents raised questions about whether the language would affect roads, sidewalks and outdoor areas.
The Laramie County Board of Commissioners on July 1 adopted a personnel concealed‑carry policy for county employees and postponed a companion resolution that would prohibit open carry in county buildings.
HR Director Heather Rudy told the board the personnel policy responds to HB 172, which removed some previous local restrictions on employees carrying firearms, and that the policy incorporates changes to clarify employee guidance. "This policy is to provide guidance for our employees in response to HB 172 that repeals gun free zones in government buildings and allows for concealed carry for county employees," Rudy said.
County Attorney Mark Voss asked the board to approve a technical edit to remove language that might be read as encouraging an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm to use it in defense of others, saying the sentence should be stricken from the approved version. "We're just asking that the version approved today strike that last sentence from that second paragraph," Voss said. Commissioners approved the policy with the attorney's edits by roll call.
A separate resolution intended to ban open carry in county‑owned or ‑controlled buildings drew extended public comment and legal questions. Mark Voss said the state statute restored local governments' authority to prohibit open carry in facilities and that the resolution was intended to bar open carry "in county controlled and county owned buildings, or facilities." A member of the public, Bill Weaver, asked whether the word "property" in paragraph 5 could be read to cover county roads or other outdoor areas; Voss confirmed the statutory definitions can include roads in some contexts and said the county's interest in roads differs from its interest in buildings.
The board debated an amendment that would have replaced "property" with a phrase such as "buildings, structures and their curtilage, parking lots and sidewalks" but the amendment was withdrawn. Senior Deputy County Attorney Brad Lund recommended more time to refine the language so that enforcement by law enforcement and court security would be clear. "I would ask that we table this temporarily to fine tune the exact wording," Lund said. The board voted unanimously to postpone the open‑carry resolution to the July 15 meeting so staff could clarify the scope and provide an advisory interpretation for enforcement.
The board's action separates employee policy (adopted) from the facilities resolution (postponed for rewording). The county indicated the Shooting Sports Complex and county roads are not the intended targets of a facilities open‑carry prohibition and that staff will return with clarified language.
Next step: the board will revisit the open‑carry resolution at its July 15 meeting after staff and county attorneys supply amended language and interpretive guidance for courthouse security and other affected facilities.
