This will be a big session for MT gun owners.

Here is some information on Montana Shooting Sports Assoc's 3 planned bills this session:

1. HB 102 Ending "gun free zones."  Our flagship bill will be one to eliminate dangerous gun free zones in Montana, in all their manifestations, places where only criminals have guns.  This bill will include what some misname as "constitutional carry."  We don't call it that in Montana, because of the antique provision in the Montana Constitution from 1884 that says that our RKBA doesn't include concealed carry.  So, we call it "permitless carry."  Currently, we are permitless in 99.4% of Montana - outside the limits of cities and towns.  This bill will make inside cities permitless and it will leave our current permit system in place for people who want them for Brady buys and out-of-state travel.  Plus, people with permits will be able to exercise their permits anywhere except jails, prisons, federal buildings, and private property disallowing firearms.  It will fix our longstanding problem with the "prohibited places" in Montana law (45-8-328), will address campus carry, and do some more cleanup stuff.  

Update HB 102 Feb 18th Signed into law by Governor Gianforte HB 102 Click on the pdf tab at the top of the page.

2. Never introduced  College shooting sports.  Montana produces a number of championship shooters disproportionate to our population, yet many Montana kids accept college scholarships at out-of-state universities because Montana does not offer university or college shooting programs or scholarships.  We will have a resolution urging the Board of Regents and units of the university system to spool up shooting programs and scholarships for Montana.  Rep. Seth Berglee will sponsor this bill.  Berglee will also be Chairman of the House Education Committee.  This Resolution will likely be assigned to the Education Committee.

3. HB 258 No enforcement of new federl gun laws.  We will run again a bill we've gotten passed before to prohibit state and local government employees in Montana from enforcing or aiding to enforce any federal gun laws, rules, regulations, or executive orders enacted after January 1, 2021.  Rep. Jedediah Hinkle will sponsor this bill.  Hinkle will serve on the House Judiciary Committee.  This bill will likely be assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Update HB 258 4/23 signed into law by Governor Gianforte

Other Relevant Bills

SB 283 Clarify to school boards that expelling a student is not mandatory if a student has a firearm locked in their vehicle.
Update: 05/02 Became Law

HB 436 - amend Montana preemption law to further restrict local government regulation of firearms.
Update: Never moved forward after being tabled.


HB 504 - prohibit confiscation of ammunition, ammo components and accessories; prohibit closure of businesses that sell these things; prohibit closure of shooting ranges, all during a declared emergency.

Update: 05/02 Enrolled version printed and will be transmitted to Governor Gianforte

SB370 Protecting constitutional rights during an emergency
           05/02 Transmitted to Governor Gianforte

If you are not a member of MSSA, now is a great time to join. Visit http://www.mtssa.org/

I am not involved with MSSA or have any "inside" information other then what Gary M sends out in his emails. If any of you have better or more info, please post it!

Link to info on legislative process: http://progunleaders.org/Legislative%20Process/

HB102 would make any private property with a “no firearms” sign a prohibited place. I can’t support that.

Bill text

While I understand your sentiment, I have no problem with it,their house their rules. I just wont patronize those businesses. However I do feel that they should be liable for any injury or death that may have been prevented by allowing carry on their premises.

I get both of these standpoints. The current list of places that are off limits is kind of silly from what my research has shown. I could carry more places in Colorado than I can in Arizona. Montana is even more restrictive than AZ. I am all for allowing carry in more places. I think that if the bill is written well, no carry signs will have to be very specific to count. I also hope they aren't given force of law. Let's get rid of the resident for 6 months before you can get a permit while they're at it!

There is no penalty for carrying past a posted sign. There are penalties laid out in Section 10 but posted businesses are not listed and they only apply to people without permits.

Section 4 lists the places that are off limits (prohibited or restricted) for a permit holder. Private property owners can prohibit if they "expressly prohibit firearms".

There are a few ways to look at this.
1. Concealed is concealed
2. Their place, Their rules
3. Don't support places that are antigun

Texas has a great signage law connected to both open carry and concealed. I know citing another state steps in toes here, but the state's preemption, restrictions on local governments and signage rules are hard to beat in my opinion

There will be executive action by the house judiciary committee on Monday with HB 102. It appeared to have some good support during the hearing on Wednesday.

Here is the link to it if you want to watch the Wednesday hearing http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210107/-1/39662

HB 102 starts at 8:18


Be sure to contact members to support the bill as is. I would hate to see any of them actually water it down or remove stuff.

I caught a ban from MSSA's FB page and won't be joining the org but glad to see they are fighting.

Whoever runs their FB seems Fuddy.

I've already talked to my state rep, he's milquetoast on guns.

https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/montana-concealed-carry-bill-advances-to-house-vote

Who might that be?

Gist.

Thanks.  Message sent to Mr. Gist.

MT Message System https://leg.mt.gov/web-messaging/

Get your messages to your rep tonight!


Here is an update from Gary Marbut, President of MSSA

"MSSA's flagship bill for the session, HB 102 (eliminate "gun free zones"), is scheduled for Second Reading in the House tomorrow, 1/13.  It will come up sometime during the House floor session, which begins at 1 PM.

Please keep messages going to your Representative (Senators later - it's not there yet) asking him or her to please support HB 102, WITHOUT FURTHER AMENDMENT.

If you want to watch this House floor session to see the debate and action on HB 102, you can tune in via the Legislature's Website.  Click on the Watch/Listen link on the front page, and then select the House floor session."

Watching

Keane(D) is an idiot.  Wants to know who there has been shot before and wants to tell his sob story of getting shot.  Hearing in recess so it can go to the rules folks to see if his dumb ass question is applicable to the bill.

Y-67
N-33

I just remembered to dial in the website. I got the last minute or two before the vote and seems that I just missed the drama. The dems feelers were hurt. As if we didn't already know it was going to be a party line vote.

Did they make any amendments?

Attached File

Looks like there were no new amendments, HB 102 is still strong.

3rd reading will be tomorrow and then it will be off to Senate committee. Hopefully, it will make it through the Senate intake and then Governor Gianforte will sign it. It is set to take effect immediately.

That's the best part. I am hoping this becomes law soon.

Keane (D) (thanks Butte) wanted to tell a sob story about getting shot while getting Christmas trees but was cut off.  Then he wanted a show of hands for the members that had been shot before.  He was shut down again then it went to the rules folks.  Came back he was told to pound sand.  He said he owns guns and expects a bunch of 2A bills to come before them and he will vote "No" for all of them.  Maybe he ought to lead by example and turn his shit in?

With Keane's logic, if they get a Bill before them about rape, would he ask the members if they had been raped before?

Suggestions for @Country and others during the MT legistlative session.



Note:

This part of the Bill (or a seperate bill) needs to reference that such new federal laws, rules, regulations, or excectuve orders fall into the category of Ex Post Facto law.

Ex Post Facto

Definition - Latin for "from a thing done afterward."

Overview: Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.

Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

Art 1, § 9 - This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10. - This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.

In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties.

The Supreme Court has struck down some retroactive civil laws, but only those intended to have a punitive intent. This construction of the Ex Post Facto Clause has done little more than raise another question: What is punitive intent?  

Definition: Punitive (adjective) - inflicting or intended as punishment, (of a tax or other charge) extremely high.

It's clear from the statements made by the incoming POTUS administration that new proposed federal gun control law actions are puntive and ex post facto, and in violation of several guarantees of civil rights and liberties of the citizens of Montana (as well as the rest of the USA) in the Constitutions of the United States, and the state of Montana.

1) The proposed gun control action to prohibit the ownership of semi-automatic firearms, that have been commonly owned and used for over 100 years, purely based on their appearance and methods of function, is in direct violation of the Second Amendment of the US Bill of Right, as well as Article II, § 12 of the Montana Constitution.

Both Constitutions provides; 1) US Bill of Rights Second Amendment - The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and Montana Article II, § 12 - “[t]he right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question.

This proposed action is clearly punitive to law-abiding citizens, would infringe on citizens right to keep and bear such firearms, and are ex post facto in violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution; since this action would retroactively criminalizing legal ownership that has been legal since such firearms have come into existance.

This proposed action would also violate existing Federal law (1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act) that would place undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trap-shooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity. Semi-automatic firearms have been used for these lawful activities for over 100 years. Law-abiding citizens of Montana should not be punished and have their Constitutional right infringed upon due to the misuse of semi-automatic firearms.

2) The propose gun control action to move semi-automatic firearms into the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, is also punitive and ex post facto in violation of US Bill of Rights Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Amendments, as well as and Montana Article II, § 12.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) requires the registration (licensing) of ownership, and an excessive fee for items categorized in the NFA. NFA controlled items are not commonly owned and used, compared to the multitude of firearms that are owned and used my law-abiding citizens.  

Categorizing semi-automatic firearms into the NFA it would place a punitive financial burden on to law-biding cititizens of Montana for the ownership of firearms commonly used for sporting and personal protection purposes, and violate the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act that prohibits a national gun registry.  The proposed gun control action would penalize those citizens that do not register semi-automatic firearms and pay an excessive fee to do so for firearms that have been owned and used for lawful purposes prior to an ex post defacto law.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Montana Constitution does not require a license and fee to excercise any guaranteed right.


Summary: The proposed gun control actions states that citizens that don't surrender or register semiautomatic firearms would face punitive punishment consisting of prison time and financial fines. This contradicts efforts to reduce criminal penalties for felonious behavior by career criminals.

These actions would directly infinge upon and violate Montanans federal and state Constitutional rights.

My .02

What a clown. That is just as good as the "I believe in gun ownership, but.... "  people.

If he is a gun owner,  he should turn them in for SAfeTy.

@talyn  that is a good approach to tag along with that bill. Def worth suggesting to the bill sponsor. Would be great to see that happen!

This is good news, and a good start to the state drawing a line in the sand.  Hopefully it sails through with continued strong support.

Please pass on to the sponsor of the bill if you're in contact with.

There was a short headline about this on Newsmax today.

I’m not the least bit surprised that he’s from Butte.

102 passed 3rd reading. Onto the senate.

Awesome,I wonder how long until the senate acts on it.

2019 session it took around 2 weeks to get into committee. And then a week after for vote.

Might want to send that to your Senator to be amended to the bill there.  If passed with that amendment, it'll have to go back to the House where they can then pass it as well.  Since it's already out of the House that would be the only way to add it.

Or include the same argument that I recall reading that MT used during the Heller case at USSC, where the RKBA was part of the MT state constitution, and a condition upon which MT joined the union, and violating or nullifying RKBA was essentially a breach of contract and MT would be declaring independence

Not that I think for a second that anyone in state.gov has the balls to say it, and definitely not to live up to it if when Jong Xiden and Camel Hair-ass make a move. But who knows, maybe it would encourage other state legislatures to do the same.

@talyn was referring to a bill that has not been introduced yet. Keep this straight, hb102 is about carry laws.

There is a draft that will be brought before a house committee to exclude state or local resources from enforcing any new anti gun laws. Please see the original post to read the three separate bill proposals.

Again, HB 102 should be passed as is by the senate and then hopefully move to Governor Gianforte's desk to be signed.

Have you met or followed our new Attorney General Knudsen at all? I imagine he will be forced to file many grievances with the Trader Joe Admin.

+1

HB 102 Update

It is heading over to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday the 20th.

Send your message to the (S) Judiciary Committee here: https://leg.mt.gov/web-messaging/

Let them know that you support the bill and believe that no amendments should be made to it.

It sounds like there could be some attempts to amend or water it down because the left knows they can't stop it from moving forward.

Done.

Done.

A lot of opposition to the bill today from call ins, college students, MT Bankers Assoc, a self professed "labor thug" from the MFPE, a "consultant" speaking for Missoula and Bozeman and a Moms Demand slot.

Attached File


Executive action tomorrow in the Senate at 0900.

Sent a message in.

C'mon, guys, do it. It doesn't have to be perfect, just a brief message voicing your support.

Message submitted, and link shared to my friends around the state.

So it sounds like the bill sponsor will be proposing some amendments during the work session tomorrow. Part of it is good and part I don't really want to see happen.

So now they are going to ask that only amendments from the bill sponsor to be approved.

From Gary of the MSSA:
1) allow judges to prohibit firearms in areas of a courthouse outside the courtroom that the court or court employees use, such as jury rooms, prisoner holding rooms, etc.,

I myself don't like this change
2) allow campuses to prohibit firearms at athletic or entertainment events with controlled access and where active armed security is provided,

3) move the effective date for campus carry from immediately to June 1st,

4) in the remedies section, allow a court deciding a lawsuit for infringement under the bill to grant court costs, attorney fees, and damages to a successful plaintiff, instead of requiring a court to do that, and

Good Change Here
5)  allow unpermitted concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol ("restaurant carry" - already in the bill for people with permits).

This lady is a gun owner and she is terrified of this bill..... yep sure

Seems Busse is going full retard:
https://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/being-pro-gun-also-means-being-pro-responsibility-we-must-oppose-hb102/article_f601b1b0-17e1-5e60-9136-ebe2e5aa4981.html

Being pro-gun also means being pro-responsibility: We must oppose HB102
RYAN BUSSE 4 hrs ago

My inbox is getting blown up by NRA-ILA on this one.  It seems they are trying to take credit for this one.

And for those who are trying to be a Debbie Downer(Missoulian disabled comments......fuck that rag), GET BENT!!!!!!!!!!!!  They try to play the "blood inthe streets" card evey time a pro-gun bill is proposed/passed.

Oh, and NRA, we remember the douche you sent to Missoula during the UBC fiasco. Get bent as well.

HB 102 will be in Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, Tuesday morning.

The bankers are trying to add banks to the prohibited places to ccw. The bill sponsor and MSSA oppose this amendment.

The bill sponsor plans to submit a few amendments as outlined on above post.

You can watch the session Live feed 9am-1pm

I think MT is about the only place I've visited/lived where banks are prohibited.

I took my CCW class in Florida in 2006 or 2007 and I thought it was there too (a quick google search says I'm wrong, not sure why I thought that back then). However, I never got my permit there as I moved to Colorado in 2007. Colorado definitely has fewer restricted places. The fear mongering that the opposition plays in every state is tiresome. You'd think by now they'd stop spouting it off since it NEVER comes true. Emotions rule for them.