• 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.

Montana Gun Laws

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
what am i missing in the celebration?

HB102 [link], doesn't do much for open carry since open carry has had minimal if any restrictions with the state for quite some time already.

It does do quite a bit for conceal carry, it enables permitless carry (constitutional carry) statewide, removes prohibited places and better enables campus carry. While they aren't open carry focused they are still big wins worth celebration for Montanan's.

The celebration for open carry in Montana came with the Jan 1 effective date of LR-130, which adjusted state preemption statue's to remove the ability of local governments ability to restrict firearms in certain places such as parks and public assemblies.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
...prevent and suppress? How will this be enforced...

...to a? What does this mean. Not "in to a"..."to a"...

Can the government prevent and suppress you from leaving your property when OCing?

I do see your point, the addition of 'in' would make sense to me. However, the courts will also take into account the legislative intent. Ill raise this to a couple of people to see if they agree that its worthy of a bill (or amendment to one in flight) to adjust.
 
Last edited:

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
As long as you allow your government to regulate your rights on public property you have no rights.

Well in your state of Ohio apparently the government can regulate your rights within your own private property (IE: vehicle), thus you have no rights. Maybe you should work on that ;).
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Well in your state of Ohio apparently the government can regulate your rights within your own private property (IE: vehicle), thus you have no rights. Maybe you should work on that ;).
Well maybe you need to read the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). You have no 4th. Amendment protection in your vehicle.;)
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
Well maybe you need to read the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). You have no 4th. Amendment protection in your vehicle.;)

I was primarily referring to your need to ask permission to open carry your gun in your car.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
As long as you allow your government to regulate your rights on public property you have no rights.

There is no such thing as open carry in a vehicle in Ohio. Only concealed firearms in a vehicle. You can conceal carry in a vehicle if you obtain a Conceal carry license.

So back to my initial statement, as long as you allow your government to regulate your rights within your private property you have no rights.

If I were you, I would be more concerned about what the government is regulating and preventing within your private property than what the government is regulating within a publicly owned building in another state.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
The text you pasted above from LR-130 is incorrect. The actual language states:

MCA 45-8-351 Link

Therefore, its not 'public occupied buildings', its restricted to publicly 'owned and occupied'. A bar, restaurant or theater is not typically publicly owned but privately owned.
alas slapmonkey 45-8-351 was changed to only delete section (c) of the 2019 revised statute, nothing was legislatively added whatsoever!
(c) A local ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may not prohibit a legislative security officer who has been issued a concealed weapon permit from carrying a concealed weapon in the state capitol as provided in 45-8-317."
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
alas slapmonkey 45-8-351 was changed to only delete section (c) of the 2019 revised statute, nothing was legislatively added whatsoever!
(c) A local ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may not prohibit a legislative security officer who has been issued a concealed weapon permit from carrying a concealed weapon in the state capitol as provided in 45-8-317."
I assume you are talking about HB102. If so, I agree the changes within HB102 for 45-8-351 are of no consequence/no change.

That said, recent changes to 45-8-351 have gone into effect last month, the reason why I mentioned it to begin with. LR-130 came to be because the City of Missoula wanted to push the bounds of 45-8-351 by referring to 'public assembly' as any location in which 3 or more people were assembled in a public location, among other attempts to evade state preemption.

The link to the CURRENT MCA 45-8-351 was previously given, Which IS DIFFERENT than the 45-8-317 from 2019 that you referenced. This is because it was amended via legislative referendum after the 2019 legislative session. The link provided is reflective of LR-130 which went into effect on Jan 1 2021. These changes are what I am referring to as a win for open carry, as it removes the local governments from restricting carry in various locations (such as parks, public assemblies, etc) that Missoula and Helena were pushing.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
So back to my initial statement, as long as you allow your government to regulate your rights within your private property you have no rights.

If I were you, I would be more concerned about what the government is regulating and preventing within your private property than what the government is regulating within a publicly owned building in another state.
Apparently you don't understand that "your" motor vehicle is really not "your" motor vehicle. You licensed the motor vehicle with the state which gives you possessory interest. The state issues you a title. The Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin is sent to the state.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
Slap, 4 feb 21 post 11:
Updated with changes regarding LR-130. Restriction on local government regulation of firearms/State Preemption.

I will be updating again once HB102 is signed by the governor and asking John to update the opencarry.org site details for Montana (Permitless carry maps and other applicable changes related to HB102 and LR-130).


slapmonkey, you began the discussion w/YOUR post 11 leading with LR-130 & HB 102...
then when challenged for clarification regarding the point you were attempting to make w/this MT ballot & statutes affected by said ballot!

then slapmonkey you switch in your post 16 introduce yet another facet of the discussion
slap 5 feb 21 post 16:

The text you pasted above from LR-130 is incorrect. The actual language states:
snippp...

MCA 45-8-351 Link

then slapmonkey in your 5 feb 21 post 29:
I assume you are talking about HB102. If so, I agree the changes within HB102 for 45-8-351 are of no consequence/no change.

throughout this debacle,
you celebrate the concept, quote:
HB102 [link], doesn't do much for open carry since open carry has had minimal if any restrictions with the state for quite some time already.

It does do quite a bit for conceal carry, it enables permitless carry (constitutional carry) statewide, removes prohibited places and better enables campus carry. While they aren't open carry focused they are still big wins worth celebration for Montanan's.


yet you have failed to articulate how the discussion "...do quite a bit for conceal..(constitutional carry) statewide..."

further you have failed to articulate what remains in the statutes regarding local government can regulate PUBLIC "occupied" buildings,

and failed establish an sort of MT statutory definition of public occupied buildings !

According to 10 CFR 420.2 [Title 10 – Energy; Chapter II -- Department of Energy; Subchapter D -- Energy Conservation; Part 420 -- State Energy Program; Subpart A -- General Provisions for State Energy Program Financial Assistance], the term public building means “any building which is open to the public during normal business hours, including:
(1) Any building which provides facilities or shelter for public assembly, or which is used for educational office or institutional purposes;

(2) Any inn, hotel, motel, sports arena, supermarket, transportation terminal, retail store, restaurant, or other commercial establishment which provides services or retail merchandise;

(3) Any general office space and any portion of an industrial facility used primarily as office space;

looking through MT administrative code as well as general statutes has failed to locate a state level definition of the term "public" or "public building" or finally "public occupied building" ?
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
slapmonkey, you began the discussion w/YOUR post 11 leading with LR-130 & HB 102...
then when challenged for clarification regarding the point you were attempting to make w/this MT ballot & statutes affected by said ballot!

Updated with changes regarding LR-130. Restriction on local government regulation of firearms/State Preemption.

I will be updating again once HB102 is signed by the governor and asking John to update the opencarry.org site details for Montana (Permitless carry maps and other applicable changes related to HB102 and LR-130).

I clearly stated in the very first post that I only made changes regarding LR-130, which I specified was changes in "Restriction on local government regulation of firearms/State Preemption", <-- this is a section on the first post of this sticky thread.

I further stated that I would be updating again once HB102 is signed by the governor, at which point I would ask John to update the opencarry.org site with information changes as well.

When challenged with what's going to be updated I replied with a summary bullet point list of things that HB102 was going to do for us once signed. I agree that I never cited HB102 text, the closest I got was a bullet point list of things. This was by design, as I am not yet complete in my changes to the sticky thread or opencarry.org with changes from HB102. Given the pressure I threw you a bone with the summary bulleted list. I FURTHER clarified at the end of that poste that I was currently working on updated documentation regarding HB102.

yet you have failed to articulate how the discussion "...do quite a bit for conceal..(constitutional carry) statewide..."

HB102 of the current legislative session has passed both the state house and state senate and will be working its way to the governor who has already signaled his acceptance of the bill. This bill does some of the following:

  1. Officially makes Montana a 100% permitless carry state (constitutional carry). Previously, MT was permitless only outside of an incorporated city.
  2. Enables Campus Carry. Restricts the board of regents of the university system from restricting 2nd amendment rights with exceptions. Previously, while there were no state statutory restrictions on campus carry, the board of regents could and did enact rules and policies restricting 2nd amendment rights.
  3. Enables concealed carry in many locations that were already permitted for open carry but were explicitly restricted for conceal carry. (Such as restaurant and bar carry)
  4. Repeals a MCA section regarding carrying on trains
  5. Adds a section regarding remedy for violations of deprivations of rights against any governmental entity.

I am currently working on updated documentation regarding HB102 for the sticky and opencarry.org, so that its ready for when the governor signs the bill. The new documentation will have information regarding Open Carry, Conceal Carry with permit and Conceal Carry without permit.

After that exchange, color of law & OC for ME piped in, with old references to 45-8-351 (state preemption) with their analysis of it. I provided a post citing the currently active 45-8-351 for everyone's clarity.

You, solus, continued on the analysis of 45-8-351 by improperly (and continue to improperly) reference "public occupied building", which IS NOT what the codified language is. Your continued use of the improper reference of codified language of 45-8-351 hampers your continued misanalysis in your most recent post.

The actual language reads:
CURRENT: MCA 45-8-351 said:
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.

A "public occupied building" as you keep referencing is NOT a "publicly owned and occupied building".

further you have failed to articulate what remains in the statutes regarding local government can regulate PUBLIC "occupied" buildings,

and failed establish an sort of MT statutory definition of public occupied buildings !

[...]

looking through MT administrative code as well as general statutes has failed to locate a state level definition of the term "public" or "public building" or finally "public occupied building" ?

I don't need to provide, cite or articulate anything relating to the term "public occupied building" because that is not how it is codified. A plain reading of "publicly owned and occupied building" is clear and concise and needs no further definition or articulation. A publicly owned building is not a privately owned building, your argument that a inn, hotel, motel, supermarket, restaurant, etc are invalid as they are not publicly owned.


EDIT:
I see now where you found "public occupied building", you got it directly from the ballotpedia synopsis. That is a term ballotpedia came up with within their synopsis and is not reflective of the actual codified language.
 
Last edited:

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
Apparently you don't understand that "your" motor vehicle is really not "your" motor vehicle. You licensed the motor vehicle with the state which gives you possessory interest. The state issues you a title. The Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin is sent to the state.
There is no such thing as open carry in a vehicle in Ohio. Only concealed firearms in a vehicle. You can conceal carry in a vehicle if you obtain a Conceal carry license.

Interesting... Montana continues to recognizes an individual 2A right within their vehicle. In fact, a firearm isn't even considered concealed in Montana within a vehicle glovebox, under the seat or in a center console, let alone anywhere else in the vehicle (not concealed on your person).

You kept saying:
As long as you allow your government to regulate your rights on public property you have no rights.

I contend that, "as long as you allow your government to regulate anything within your private property, you have no rights"... and likely you have bigger problems in Ohio than you think regarding your rights. You might want to scurry on out of Montana and focus on your own's state problems instead of criticizing the efforts, changes and improvements Montana is making.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Interesting... Montana continues to recognizes an individual 2A right within their vehicle. In fact, a firearm isn't even considered concealed in Montana within a vehicle glovebox, under the seat or in a center console, let alone anywhere else in the vehicle (not concealed on your person).

You kept saying:


I contend that, "as long as you allow your government to regulate anything within your private property, you have no rights"... and likely you have bigger problems in Ohio than you think regarding your rights. You might want to scurry on out of Montana and focus on your own's state problems instead of criticizing the efforts, changes and improvements Montana is making.
Excuse me, you are the one that brought up Ohio law, not I. And you need to be more truthful. In Montana loaded carry is allowed in a vehicle as long as the firearm is not on your person. Place a loaded gun in the console and lay your jacket over the console and a crime has been committed.

It appears Montana has a bunch of wackie laws just like other states. The bottom line is Montana controls firearms in motor vehicle just most other states.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
Sigh...slapmonkey your url site is void, further your tantrum notwithstanding where you state, "I don't need to provide, cite or articulate anything relating to the term "public occupied building"..."
allow me to direct you kind attention to OCDO forum's rule regarding substantiation of members articulated posted information, quote:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

oh, an example of citing to authority is my posted cite from 10 CFR 420.2 regarding a federal legal definition of the term "public building"!

cheers mate...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
@slapmonkay , don't you know you're only allowed to post positive developments here if they're GOOD ENOUGH for those who will never think anything is good enough?
No, not the case at all. slapmonkay is attempting to sell crumbs as a whole loaf of bread. The problem is he actually believes those crumbs is whole loaf of bread.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,161
Location
here nc
@slapmonkay , don't you know you're only allowed to post positive developments here if they're GOOD ENOUGH for those who will never think anything is good enough?

so, KB, then from your snipe, Montana now has 'constitutional carry' in place, including with "public buildings" being off limits!
remember folks believe everything post are absolutely correct & true...
 
Last edited:

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
Excuse me, you are the one that brought up Ohio law, not I. And you need to be more truthful. In Montana loaded carry is allowed in a vehicle as long as the firearm is not on your person. Place a loaded gun in the console and lay your jacket over the console and a crime has been committed.

It appears Montana has a bunch of wackie laws just like other states. The bottom line is Montana controls firearms in motor vehicle just most other states.

I would absolutely LOVE to see your cite that says it's a violation of an MCA to 'place a loaded gun in console' within a vehicle.

I'll wait...

I'll save you the time, there are none. In fact, 'loaded' is never defined or referenced in MT gun laws and the Montana DOJ website specifically states:
MT DOJ said:
"Montana has no prohibitions against carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle."

<link>

Also, feel free to look up the definition of 'concealed', it might be enlightening to you.

Never mind, ill do it for you:
MCA 45-8-315 said:
45-8-315. Definition. "Concealed weapon" means a firearm that is wholly or partially covered by the clothing or wearing apparel of the person carrying or bearing the weapon.

<link>
 
Last edited:

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,309
Location
Montana
Sigh...slapmonkey your url site is void, further your tantrum notwithstanding where you state, "I don't need to provide, cite or articulate anything relating to the term "public occupied building"..."
allow me to direct you kind attention to OCDO forum's rule regarding substantiation of members articulated posted information, quote:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

oh, an example of citing to authority is my posted cite from 10 CFR 420.2 regarding a federal legal definition of the term "public building"!

cheers mate...

I have cited to authority, the url to MCA 45-8-351, which has the actual language. The URL I provided is to the actual Montana State MCA's hosted by the State of Montana. Can't have any more authority than that. So I surely would love to understand why YOU call the url 'void'. 🤔

You, unlike me, have failed to cite to authority. Your cite to ballotopia and THEIR synopsis, is the furthest thing away from an official cite. It doesn't even have the MCA language in it. Your cite to 10 CFR is not relevant because we aren't defining "public building". You have got to look at the actual language of the code and not someone's synopsis, come'on man you know better.
 
Top