• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 102 Signed by Governor - Permitless, campus and Restaurant&Bar carry plus other enhancements

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
Preface: *If you only care about open carry, this bill is less exciting for you*. MT is already a very good state to open carry in with hardly any restrictions. However, if you are a type of person that switches between open and concealed carry, there are enhancements here that are good for you.

MSSA, author of the bill provides an overview of the bill here: https://progunleaders.org/2021_MT_Update/

MSSA Courtesy Quote said:
...

Purpose of LR-130 and HB 102

The Purpose of LR-130 was to remove exceptions from Montana's "preemption law" that had been abused by some local governments. Montana has had a preemption law at 45-8-351 since the 1980s, a law that generally prevents local government from regulating firearms. There have been some exceptions in 45-8-351 to allow local governments some limited authority to regulate firearms in certain places and for certain people. Some Montana local governments abused those limited authorities. The purpose of LR-130 was to remove from the law the exceptions that had been abused and thereby further restrict the authority of local government to regulate firearms.

The general purpose of HB 102 is to eliminate dangerous "gun free zones", those places where only criminals would be armed because of a government prohibition that only law-abiding gun owners would obey. HB 102 has four major elements: Permitless carry, campus carry, restaurant and bar carry, and enhancement of existing concealed weapon permits (CWP), plus some minor elements.

...

<link>

For those interested in the actual bill language signed by the governor, you can view at this link: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0102.pdf

Areas of interest:
  • Permitless concealed carry is made possible by the amended MCA 45-8-316 (3), contained within 'Section 9' of the bill.
  • Campus carry is made possible by new MCA section, contained within 'Section 6' of the bill.
  • Enhancements to concealed carry are made by the amended MCA 45-8-328, contained within 'Section 10' of the bill.

I'll be making changes to the sticky thread.

All changes are effective immediately (today), EXCEPT for campus carry which is effective June 1, 2021.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,986
Location
here nc
Preface: *If you only care about open carry, this bill is less exciting for you*. MT is already a very good state to open carry in with hardly any restrictions. However, if you are a type of person that switches between open and concealed carry, there are enhancements here that are good for you.

MSSA, author of the bill provides an overview of the bill here: https://progunleaders.org/2021_MT_Update/



For those interested in the actual bill language signed by the governor, you can view at this link: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0102.pdf

Areas of interest:
  • Permitless concealed carry is made possible by the amended MCA 45-8-316 (3), contained within 'Section 9' of the bill.
  • Campus carry is made possible by new MCA section, contained within 'Section 6' of the bill.
  • Enhancements to concealed carry are made by the amended MCA 45-8-328, contained within 'Section 10' of the bill.

I'll be making changes to the sticky thread.

All changes are effective immediately (today), EXCEPT for campus carry which is effective June 1, 2021.

slapmonkey..
1. where does the changes to 45-8-316 you reference as precipitation of 'permitless concealed carry' since it does not mention nor unequivocally state MT 45-8-3211, PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON is rescinded, revoked, or no longer applicable?

45-8-316 cite which added (3): https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0102.pdf

45-8-3211 cite: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0080/part_0030/section_0210/0450-0080-0030-0210.html#:~:text=(2) The sheriff may deny,the applicant should not be

2. Enhancement(s) to concealed carry - really?
a. when citizens are STILL prohibited in portions of a building used for state/local government office and related areas in the building that have been restricted?

nowhere in HB102 does it make mention to institute permitless carry, e.g., revoke 45-8-316, in the great state of Montana!
b. since (b) not added says 'it is not an offense under this section to carry a concealed weapon while:
(i) financial institution's drive up window, ATM, or unstaffed night depository, or
(ii) at or near branch office in a mall, grocery store, etc.,

do a search on your cited document regarding the term permitless carry...

preemption yes, permitless carry of a firearm...no!

finally...might check out section 4 of your cite:
Section 4. Where concealed weapon may be carried -- exceptions. A person with a current and
valid permit
issued pursuant to 45-8-321 or recognized pursuant to 45-8-329 may not be prohibited or restricted
from exercising that permit anywhere in the state, except:
(1) in a correctional, detention, or treatment facility operated by or contracted with the department of
corrections or a secure treatment facility operated by the department of public health and human services;
(2) in a detention facility or secure area of a law enforcement facility owned and operated by a city or
county;
(3) at or beyond a security screening checkpoint regulated by the transportation security
administration in a publicly owned, commercial airport;
(4) in a building owned and occupied by the United States;
(5) on a military reservation owned and managed by the United States;
(6) on private property where the owner of the property or the person who possesses or is in control
of the property, including a tenant or lessee of the property, expressly prohibits firearms;
[owner of a bar says no firearms...end of discussion]
(7) within a courtroom or an area of a courthouse in use by court personnel pursuant to an order of a
justice of the peace or judge; or
(8) in a school building as determined by a school board pursuant to 45-8-361
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
@solus, Montana now has 3 state's of carry. None of them are 'defined' via legislature but rather implied by implementation.
  • Open Carry
  • Permitless Concealed Carry
  • Permitted Concealed Carry
MCA 45-8-316 historically has been the statute which made it illegal to conceal a firearm. MCA 45-8-317, provided exceptions to MCA 45-8-316, which included permitted conceal carry (g) (among others). With HB 102, a subsection (3) was added to MCA 45-8-316 to exempt anyone 'eligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law.', this made the list of exceptions in MCA 45-8-317 no longer relevant because the whole list were people eligible to posses firearms under state or federal law, due to this MCA 45-8-317 was repealed. This new subsection MCA 45-8-316(3) provides the conduit of permitless carry, as anyone eligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law falls under the exception to the 'carrying concealed firearms' punishment and fine.

MCA 45-8-321, which is the shall issue permit statute, that you reference will not be repealed because 'Permitted Concealed carry' still exists. Due to this, the permitting process and scheme still remains. A sheriff's office could in theory still deny a permit for cause (your quoted text). There remains advantages to obtaining a permit, such as using the NICS verification from the permit to purchase a firearm, state reciprocity and less prohibited locations.

If you closely look at [Section 4] of HB 102, the list provided is not a list of 'restricted' locations. It's in fact a list of locations that the government MAY be able to prohibit or restrict someone that is issued a permit from exercising their right to carry. All other locations can't be regulated for permitted conceal carry. So if this is not the list of restricted locations, where is that list? Answer: There isn't a list of restricted locations if you have been issued a permit. The state didn't create a restricted locations list for permitted carriers. And due to State Preemption via MCA 45-8-351, local municipals only have the authority to regulate 'unpermitted concealed carry' and 'unconcealed weapons' to a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction. The state preemption statute does not allow those local municipals to regulate 'permitted concealed carry', except for city/town discharge.

So where do we stand, where can't someone carry?

Open Carry:
There are no restricted locations at the state level for Open or 'unconcealed carry' of firearms. However, state preemption MCA 45-8-351 does allow a local governmental unit to regulate carry within "a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction".

MT Board of Regents for the university system may choose to regulate carry in some circumstances but they have not yet done so.

Unpermitted Concealed Carry:
May not carry in 'portions of a building used for state or local government offices and related areas in the building that have been restricted'.

State preemption MCA 45-8-351 does allow a local governmental unit to regulate carry within "a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction".

MT Board of Regents for the university system may choose to regulate carry in some circumstances but they have not yet done so.

Permitted Concealed Carry:
There are no restricted locations at the state level for 'permitted concealed carry' of firearms. Local governmental units are also prohibited via state preemption MCA 45-8-351 from further regulating permitted concealed carry.

Due to new [Section 4] of HB 102, the MT Board of Regents can not prohibit or restrict anyone issued a permit from exercising the use of that permit and right because the university system is publicly owned and not listed within the locations allowed to be regulated by that [Section 4].



Edit: Regarding 'enhancements' statement you made, it is true that private property is still able to prohibit carry but private property owners have always been able to prohibit carry via personal property rights and trespass. No new law was enacted that made sign's carry the weight of law or made it a punishable crime to carry on private property. What did improve was the fact that banks, credit unions, restaurants that serve alcohol (Applebee's) and bar's were removed from the state level prohibited places list for concealed carry. This is an enhancement. Also the prohibited places was changed to only apply to individuals not issued a permit.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,986
Location
here nc
Sorry slapmonkey, when you you have statutory mandates, e.g., "Permitted Concealed Carry" MT 45-8-3211, PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON, you cannot make the unequivocal statement, quote:

Slapmonkey quote: 'None of them are 'defined' via legislature but rather implied by implementation."

45-8-3211 was defined by legislative oversight.

and the concealed permit is waiver from nics background check during purchase from FFL!

that regents, property owners, communities, can regulate carry, there is no preemptive enhancements for citizens whatsoever!

as for permitless...uh huh, right. "implied implementation" ok...
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
as for permitless...uh huh, right. "implied implementation" ok...

Well I mean everyone seems to disagree with you:

NRA: Montana: Governor Greg Gianforte Signs Permitless Carry Legislation Into Law
NRA: Constitutional carry passes in Montana

National Association for Gun Rights: Montana becomes the 18th constitutional carry state!

MT Free Press: Gianforte Signs Constitutional Carry Gun Bill
(Various other MT new papers have similar articles, not posting them all)

MT Shooting Sports Association: Posted a summary of HB 102 and permitless carry
MT Shooting Sports Association: Posted a facebook banner claiming permitless carry

MT Gov Greg Gianforte shared a 'Constitutional Carry' article on his Facebook page saying he signed it.


I mean I could find more but I think I get the point across... ?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
@solus,

Open Carry:
There are no restricted locations at the state level for Open or 'unconcealed carry' of firearms. However, state preemption MCA 45-8-351 does allow a local governmental unit to regulate carry within "a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction".

MT Board of Regents for the university system may choose to regulate carry in some circumstances but they have not yet done so.
Section12. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The 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, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

"45-8-351(2)(a) For public safety purposes, a city or town may regulate the discharge of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit has power to prevent and suppress the carrying of unpermitted concealed weapons or the carrying of unconcealed weapons to a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction."

45-8-351(2)(a) is unconstitutional. Do you really think denying someone their first amendment right to speak "For public safety purposes" would pass constitutional muster? Look at 7-1-111(9) "Powers denied. A local government unit with self-government powers is prohibited from exercising the following: (9) any power that applies to or affects the right to keep or bear arms, except that a local government has the power to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons;"
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
Section12. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The 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, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

"45-8-351(2)(a) For public safety purposes, a city or town may regulate the discharge of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit has power to prevent and suppress the carrying of unpermitted concealed weapons or the carrying of unconcealed weapons to a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction."

45-8-351(2)(a) is unconstitutional. Do you really think denying someone their first amendment right to speak "For public safety purposes" would pass constitutional muster? Look at 7-1-111(9) "Powers denied. A local government unit with self-government powers is prohibited from exercising the following: (9) any power that applies to or affects the right to keep or bear arms, except that a local government has the power to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons;"

I don't nessesairly disagree with your assessment. I even agree that if challenged the courts would side with the open carrier. However, that person would need to be willing to violate the unconstitutional law and challenge it in court. MOST people wouldn't be willing, so providing the safer restrictions as provided in the law is what's provided. By all means, if someone has read and came to your same analysis and wants to push it I would support that approach and choice.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,986
Location
here nc
Again slapmonke, explain to everyone how this bit of whimsical wordsmith'd legislation changed or eliminated section 12 giving the State overseer's granting of privilege conceal carrying of fireams provision contained in the State's constitutional mandates which has everyone leaping with joy ? [...may not be "held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."]

further, you failed to brag about the necessity of citizens, wishing to engage in "permitless carry," MUST have completed the same firearm training regime as those citizens seeking & completing the overseer privilege granted CWP !

Certainly sounds like legislative overseer privilege being imposed on the state's firearm citizens!

IF you have constitutional carry, there are no legislative imposed restrictions...now nor in the future period!

i noticed w/interest, you failed to address any of the issues i brought up, but instead pointed only to newspeek entities proclaiming the same rhetoric w/o and rationale how it was facilitated...why is that slapmonkey?

you have not changed your state's constitution whatsoever
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I don't nessesairly disagree with your assessment. I even agree that if challenged the courts would side with the open carrier. However, that person would need to be willing to violate the unconstitutional law and challenge it in court. MOST people wouldn't be willing, so providing the safer restrictions as provided in the law is what's provided. By all means, if someone has read and came to your same analysis and wants to push it I would support that approach and choice.
No, that is not the only way. Do you believe I pull this stuff out of my a$$? Section 45-8-351(2)(a) was amended in 2019. Now go read Montana Attorney General, 57 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1 (2017) and Montana Supreme court opinion City of Missoula v. Fox, 450 P. 3d 898 (2019). Section 7-1-111(9) is still in the books because the Montana legislature knows they have no power to override the constitution.

Getting prosecuted to address the issue is not necessary. But I'll let you figure out how to solve the issue. It's not hard; I gave you a clue in the above paragraph.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,307
Location
northern wis
Montana now has 3 state's of carry. None of them are 'defined' via legislature but rather implied by implementation.
  • Open Carry
  • Permitless Concealed Carry
  • Permitted Concealed Carry
It is always good to have options.

As with any state where the weather can vary greatly taking off and adding garments is the norm.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,986
Location
here nc
Montana now has 3 state's of carry. None of them are 'defined' via legislature but rather implied by implementation.
  • Open Carry
  • Permitless Concealed Carry
  • Permitted Concealed Carry
It is always good to have options.

As with any state where the weather can vary greatly taking off and adding garments is the norm.
FI, as asked of the OP earlier, with no explanation poffered...

Perhaps you can explain to everyone how this bit of whimsical wordsmith'd legislation changed or eliminated the state's constitutional section 12, [...may not be "held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."] which the State overseer's believes now granting the citizens privilege of conceal carrying of firearms provision WITHOUT a permit?

further, FI everyone so excited has failed to brag about the necessity of MT citizens, wishing to engage in "permitless carry," MUST have completed the same firearm training regime as those citizens seeking & completing the overseer privilege granted CWP !

FI, that certainly sounds like legislative overseer privilege being imposed on the state's firearm carrying citizens!

IF MT has constitutional carry, there are no legislative imposed restrictions...now nor in the future period!

sorry FI, the MT legislative overseers have not changed the state's constitution whatsoever so there is no permitless carry implied nor otherwise?
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,307
Location
northern wis
The Montana constitution allows for regulation of concealed carry.

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The 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, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Section 13
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The Montana constitution allows for regulation of concealed carry.

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The 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, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Section 13
You didn't read post #4, #7 and #10?
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
No, that is not the only way. Do you believe I pull this stuff out of my a$$? Section 45-8-351(2)(a) was amended in 2019. Now go read Montana Attorney General, 57 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1 (2017) and Montana Supreme court opinion City of Missoula v. Fox, 450 P. 3d 898 (2019). Section 7-1-111(9) is still in the books because the Montana legislature knows they have no power to override the constitution.

Getting prosecuted to address the issue is not necessary. But I'll let you figure out how to solve the issue. It's not hard; I gave you a clue in the above paragraph.

We just got HB 436 passed out of committee, it will be going to the house floor tomorrow. Hopefully we can get this bill passed as it would address the issue you brought up. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the state preemption statute by striking the remaining things local municipals are able to regulate.

HB 436 said:
...

45-8-351. Restriction on local government regulation of firearms. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.

(2) (a) For public safety purposes, a city or town may regulate the discharge of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit has power to prevent and suppress the carrying of unpermitted concealed weapons or the carrying of unconcealed weapons to a publicly owned and occupied building under its jurisdiction.

...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
We just got HB 436 passed out of committee, it will be going to the house floor tomorrow. Hopefully we can get this bill passed as it would address the issue you brought up. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the state preemption statute by striking the remaining things local municipals are able to regulate.
AND to remove unconstitutional wording from a statute.

Now you guys need to fix the definition of concealed. The term "partially covered" by clothing is vague. Many states rely on a definition the complete opposite. If the firearm is discernable from ordinary observation then it is not concealed.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,205
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 258 this morning. It has an immediate effective date so it is now law in Montana.
HB 258 prohibits state and local government employees from enforcing or assisting to enforce any new federal gun laws, executive orders, rules, or regulation that affect firearms or accessories and that may become effective after January 1, 2021.
HB 258 was sponsored by Rep. Jedediah Hinkle (R-Belgrade). This bill was introduced at the request of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. It was also introduced and passed by the Legislature in 2013, 2015, and 2017, but vetoed each time by then-Governor Bullock.
MSSA and Montana Open Carry, thank Representative Hinkle and Governor Gianforte for making HB 258 happen. Montana doesn't want or need the types of gun control measures that may be desired by politicians in D.C. HB 258 will minimize the effect of any new federal gun control on Montana's law-abiding gun owners.
 
Top