Posted: 8/14/2026 4:23:16 PM EDT
|
So, how exactly does this ruling affect us here? Montana signed on to the case. It seems Silencer Shop and others won't ship cans without NFA paperwork due to our law that state possession of an unregistered silencer is prima facie evidence of one's intent to commit an offense with it. What if they do not need to be registered anymore? Is anything being done about this? Also, what about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act and homemade silencers? They are supposed to be exempt from federal regulations. And finally, what about SBR/SBS conversions from pistols/firearms? Our statute that covers SBR/SBS specifically refers to sawn off rifles and shotguns, that is, long arms that originally were in a title 1 configurations, not handguns or PGO shotguns. Anyone know a legislator that will get the AG to write an opinion? |
|
Originally Posted By chevrofreak: It sounds like the states that signed on only exempted government agencies from NFA requirements, so everyone will have to join a covered member organization. |
| Yet another day-late, dollar-short Montana thing. Every single state bordering us except NoDak is good to go. But here we sit... late to the party yet again. I remember waiting for Constitutional Carry for years after WY got theirs. I was born and raised in WY, but moved to MT in '84 with my parents. They moved back to WY a few years later, but my trajectory (college, career, and later-on wife+kids) kept me in Montana. I've wanted to get back to WY for years (I still prefer to camp and flyfish there, and do so every summer). But it's unlikely I'll be moving back considering my wife's preference to stay in MT, where she's lived for alll of her 64 years. On the whole there are a lot worse places to live than here. But as always, it's far from perfect. |
"From hell 's heart, I stab at thee."
Joined:
Oct 2022
Posts:
1127
EE: 0% (0)
MT, USA
|
Please contact your state representative and state senator, and the governor about changing our laws so that we can benefit from this recent decision. Legislature will be in session this upcoming January. 45-8-337 is the statute requiring federal registration of a silencer for possession of a silencer to be lawful under state law. The whole statutory framework for Montana’s silencer laws are weird and dumb. I can try to explain it if anyone would like me to. But just know that it is dumb. 45-8-340(3)(f) is the statute requiring a tax stamp for SBRs and SBSs to make possession lawful. I haven’t seen MSSA’s draft bill language, but it’s nice to know they have a plan. Bills that are drafted and ready to be submitted before the session starts have a better chance of passing. I’ve heard there’s already been a lot of proposed bills submitted for drafting to the legislature and the attorneys that draft bills for the legislature are already behind. AG Knudsen is a gun guy so I imagine he’ll be supporting this legislation. But an AG opinion isn’t going to help us. It’s going to take a change at the legislature. With how short our legislative sessions are and the number of bill drafts that have already been submitted , it’s going to take pressure on the house, senate and governor’s office to get this accomplished. So don’t think this will automatically get taken care of. It’s going to take contacting legislatures and putting pressure on them so this doesn’t get put on the back burner for other issues. |
|
Originally Posted By FriskyDillo: Please contact your state representative and state senator, and the governor about changing our laws so that we can benefit from this recent decision. Legislature will be in session this upcoming January. 45-8-337 is the statute requiring federal registration of a silencer for possession of a silencer to be lawful under state law. The whole statutory framework for Montana's silencer laws are weird and dumb. I can try to explain it if anyone would like me to. But just know that it is dumb. 45-8-340(3)(f) is the statute requiring a tax stamp for SBRs and SBSs to make possession lawful. I haven't seen MSSA's draft bill language, but it's nice to know they have a plan. Bills that are drafted and ready to be submitted before the session starts have a better chance of passing. I've heard there's already been a lot of proposed bills submitted for drafting to the legislature and the attorneys that draft bills for the legislature are already behind. AG Knudsen is a gun guy so I imagine he'll be supporting this legislation. But an AG opinion isn't going to help us. It's going to take a change at the legislature. With how short our legislative sessions are and the number of bill drafts that have already been submitted , it's going to take pressure on the house, senate and governor's office to get this accomplished. So don't think this will automatically get taken care of. It's going to take contacting legislatures and putting pressure on them so this doesn't get put on the back burner for other issues. 45-8-340. Sawed-off firearm -- penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of possession of a sawed-off firearm if the person knowingly possesses a rifle or shotgun that when originally manufactured had a barrel length of: (a) 16 inches or more and an overall length of 26 inches or more in the case of a rifle; or (b) 18 inches or more and an overall length of 26 inches or more in the case of a shotgun; and (c) the firearm has been modified in a manner so that the barrel length, overall length, or both, are less than specified in subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b). It appears to say that anything that was originally manufactured as a 16/18"+ cannot get a shortened barrel. But anything that is a pistol, braced pistol, or firearm (shockwave) can be SBR/SBS'd by a plaintiff (GOA member, etc) without a Form 1. Who is the MT gun politics guy? @Country I think. I'd like to call Knudsen's office for clarification before I stock anything without a stamp. And whomever wrote the suppressor clause (fucking prima faciae evidence of a crime) can go fuck themselves if they're still alive. The suppressor and "sawn off" law author must have watched too many 1970s crime dramas. |
| I stopped by my local shop who deals in SS suppressors. In their words, MT signed on to exempt LEOs from having to jump through the hoops. We are now stuck in a “rules for thee but not for me” scenario. Our legislative session for 2027 starts Jan 4th unless a special session is called. So, even if the BATFE unf__ks itself, we are still bound by state law until changes are made. Our best case scenario is blow up Gianforte’s phone and get a special session convened. It would be a simple one page bill striking language from current law. |
Man who put head in sand get ass kicked.
| https://dojmt.gov/attorney-general-knudsen-issues-legal-guidance-following-silencer-shop-ruling/ |
Teener Crew For Life We hate 'em 'cause we ain't 'em
PASS
FDEpocalypse - WSUB - 31 JAN 2015
PASS
FDEpocalypse - WSUB - 31 JAN 2015
| PDF link of open letter to Montana prosecutors and LEOs |
Teener Crew For Life We hate 'em 'cause we ain't 'em
PASS
FDEpocalypse - WSUB - 31 JAN 2015
PASS
FDEpocalypse - WSUB - 31 JAN 2015
|
Talking with all my local nfa guys…I don’t think any dealers are going to risk anything until a change to MCA… Business as usual until the legislative session, looks like |
Some will die in hot pursuit in fiery auto crashes.
Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain, that's pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain.
Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain, that's pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain.
|
Originally Posted By KnightSchneider: Talking with all my local nfa guys I don't think any dealers are going to risk anything until a change to MCA Business as usual until the legislative session, looks like |
|
Not to derail or play too many "what ifs". But the Montana NFA laws are strange and really need to be updated. The way they sit now, IF and this is a big IF, the ATF stopped regulating NFA stuff, pretend SBR and cans just were regular firearms with no stamps issued. Then as it sits now they would be illegal in MT with out a stamp. I think this came up when people were thinking the BBB might just do away with the NFA process all together. In Montana, cans and SBRs are illegal UNLESS you have specific permission for them. So think of it as they are 100% illegal UNLESS you have a stamp for them. So as it stands, no stamp no go. If the NFA branch closed doors (I know, never going to happen) then until the MT laws are fixed no new cans or SBR/SBS could be purchased. If I am wrong on this then I apologize. I am 100% no lawyer, this is just my understanding from back when it was looking like BBB might just stop the NFA/stamp/registration process. Instead it just went to a $0 tax. But now it looks like things might go that way from a different direction. I guess all I am saying, MT need to fix this. If the ATF says "you dont need a stamp on cans. So we arnt going to waist the time, resources, man power issuing them any more" MT could have some problems. |