Takeaways from Texas Tech’s dominant 96-49 win over Wyoming

Hawkins, Anderson make Texas Tech debuts

Defense takes significant step forward

Toppin records first Red Raider double-double

Tech moves to 3-0, look to conclude homestand v. Arkansas-Pine Bluff

The University of Wyoming Board of Trustees is scheduled to consider allowing the concealed carrying of firearms at it’s November 20-22 meeting.

The issue of guns on campus in Laramie has long been a contentious one. Numerous bills in the Wyoming Legislature to get rid of most gun-free zones in the state would have allowed guns on the U.W. campus. But so far none of those bills have become law.

The current university gun policy generally prohibits firearms on campus, although people can ask the UW police department for an exemption under certain circumstances, such as if they feel their lives are in danger from a stalker.

Publlic Events Planned To Discuss Concealed Carry

The UW Firearms Research Center [FRC] Which is based at the UW College of Law, plans two public events to discuss the proposed rule.

The first is a webinar “featuring Vice President and General Counsel Tara Evans, UW Police Chief Josh Holland, Branding Iron Editor-in-Chief Ven Meester and FRC Director’ George Mocsary, a law professor. This online event, moderated by FRC Executive Director Ashley Hlebinsky, will provide information about the content of the draft rule,” according to the release.

That event is slated for Thursday, Nov. 14 at 12:30 p.m.

The FRC is also planning a town-hall meeting  Monday, Nov. 18, at 12:30 p.m. in the West Ballroom of the Wyoming Union. The release says ”Panelists include President Ed Seidel, Evans, Holland, Meester and Mocsary. The in-person event will be moderated by College of Business Assistant Professor Matt Burgess and will allow participants to ask questions, glean insight and, ultimately, weigh in on this important topic.”

You can submit questions at FRC@uwyo.edu.

To RSVP for the events go to https://firearmsresearchcenter.org/events/. Zoom and WyoCast links will be sent upon registration.

Opponents of banning guns on campus generally argue that gun-free zones don’t really stop anyone who is intent on breaking the law. They say that an armed public is better able to protect themselves from armed assailants, saying that a good-guy with a gun can often stop a bad guy with a gun.

But supporters of banning guns on campus say that while someone who plans out a mass attack with a firearm may indeed ignore gun-free zone laws, it’s still one more barrier. They also say the easy availability of firearms is a factor in many heat-of-the moment shootings and even suicides.

So what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry concealed firearms on the UW campus? Take our poll and give us your opinion!

Hackneyed phrases that were part of the public lexicon in the West for years, like the so-called “war on coal” and promise to “drill, baby, drill!” are back with a vengeance. So are federal land swaps, gutting environmental regulations, and other proposals that will make Wyoming officials and the minerals industry salivate, and conservationists cringe.

No, we’re not trapped in a time warp. It’s just preparation for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the 2.0 version that wants to strip all of President Joe Biden’s federal public lands protections to spur huge corporate profits at the expense of public access.

It’s a trade-off many Wyoming politicians are willing to make to keep mineral tax revenues flowing to state government, while communities hope to preserve jobs and improve the local economy. I understand the motivation to protect what’s “ours,” but federal lands belong to all Americans, and aren’t meant to only benefit the states where they are located.

The new Trump administration will likely resemble his first. He promised to save the coal industry, but only oversaw its rapid decline because it failed to compete with cheaper wind and solar energy and natural gas. There was never a federal war on coal, just a natural free market response to a dying industry. 

In this year’s presidential election, there was a clear public policy choice to address climate change by lowering greenhouse gas emissions through increased renewable energy use. Trump continues to call climate change a hoax and never listens to scientists who say it’s the biggest existential threat to the planet. 

I won’t pretend Biden’s energy policies were perfect, or that Democratic nominee Kamala Harris would make them so. Her flip-flop on fracking dismayed supporters and wasn’t believed by critics, and was a detriment to her failed campaign.

But Harris promised that as president she would “unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, and increases resilience to climate disasters.”

Trump, in sharp contrast, pledged to “unleash” domestic fossil fuel production, slash royalties that corporations pay to drill on federal lands, expedite oil and gas permitting, and withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement.

To understand the dark days ahead, read the section on public lands proposed by Project 2025, the blueprint for Trump’s second term published by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.

Trump back-pedaled as fast as he could when people condemned the agenda written by key members of his first administration. He put so much distance between himself and the 900-page document, that it was largely forgotten in the final days of the campaign.

After Trump’s victory, advisers like recently released felon Steve Bannon bragged that Project 2025 is precisely what his old boss has in store for the nation. It spells out a forthcoming disaster for our public lands, giving extractive industries nearly unfettered access to them while gutting the Department of the Interior and severely restricting the power of the Endangered Species Act.

Republicans have long sought to turn ownership of federal lands over to the states, under the specious claim state governments have more expertise to manage them. In reality, states like Wyoming have nowhere near the financial resources to take on such responsibility and would sell the lands to private developers as fast as they could.

It speaks volumes that the Project 2025 chapter on the Interior Department was written by William Perry Pendley, Trump’s former acting director of the Bureau of Land Management. Pendley’s entire career has been focused on defending land grabs like the infamous Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1980s, which sought — but fortunately failed — to either outright transfer federal lands to states or privatize them.

Unbelievably, Pendley simply turned writing the section on energy production on federal lands over to Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas trade association, and two industry allies. It’s a perfect example of what to expect from Trump’s administration on this and other vital public matters: let industry write the rules.

Pendley’s enemies list includes environmentalists, whom he has compared to communists and Nazis, and the Interior Department itself. He claims the latter has grown beholden to radical environmentalists and now abuses U.S. laws “to advance a radical climate agenda.”

Expect a deluge of conservation lawsuits that will hopefully tie up many of Trump’s most egregious proposals in court for years, so they can be overturned by judges or voters in 2028.

Speaking of litigation, there’s no doubt Wyoming officials view Trump’s win as a huge plus in their efforts to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court — with its conservative supermajority, thanks to the president-elect — to rule in favor of Utah in its federal public lands lawsuit. Utah claims the federal BLM shouldn’t be able to own land in the state without giving it a designation, like national park or national monument status.

Utah’s lawsuit has separate friend-of-the-court briefs filed by U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming), Gov. Mark Gordon, and 26 members of the Freedom Caucus, which will take control of the Wyoming House next year. If Utah wins its suit, it could pave the way for 17 million acres of federal land in Wyoming to be transferred to the state.

During her career as a lawyer, Hageman carved out a reputation as a fierce opponent of federal environmental laws. Her participation in the suit, which is a disservice to her constituents, at least makes political sense. So does the support of the anti-federal government zealots in the Freedom Caucus.

But what is Gordon’s excuse for joining this sinking ship? In a 2022 interview with the Keep It Public Wyoming Coalition, the governor said large-scale federal land transfers were “a fool’s mission … before we ever gave up those lands [to the federal government], our act of admission required that of us.”

Gordon added he supports public lands and access to sportspeople, so he would oppose such federal transfers. So what’s changed, governor? It’s certainly not Rocky Mountain residents’ broad and bipartisan support for protecting federal public lands, which has been consistent for many years.

Hageman has joined other Republicans in a scheme to get control of federal lands: use it to build affordable housing. In a Washington Examiner op-ed in June, Pendley agreed with the proposal and wrote that Westerners’ future is now “impeded unnecessarily by vast swaths of federal land largely unused, unnecessary, and exorbitantly expensive to maintain.”

Vice President-elect J.D. Vance concurred during his debate with Democratic opponent Tim Walz. He said Trump believes we have a lot of federal lands that aren’t being used for anything, and “they could be places where we build a lot of housing.”

Naturally, Vance and Trump don’t see the value of public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreation, or keeping natural landscapes intact to safeguard clean air, water and wildlife habitat. 

Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Colorado-based conservation group Center for Western Priorities, told HuffPost the GOP realizes selling off federal lands wholesale is a political third rail, so now they’re trying to frame it as a housing solution.

“But what they’re actually proposing is just more sprawl and McMansions,” Weiss said. Of course, that’s not what the vast majority of Wyomingites want, but I suppose the 75% of Wyoming voters who supported Trump weren’t thinking about the mess states like ours would be left to clean up when they cast their ballots.