This bill requires Montana school districts to create a student protection policy mandating background checks for any individual who may have unsupervised contact with students, including employees, volunteers, and contractors. The key provision mandates that before allowing such contact, individuals must either complete a fingerprint-based national criminal history background check or provide sufficient information for one to be conducted, with results reviewed by district officials. The law also requires districts that fail to comply with their own student protection policies to submit a correction plan to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. These changes directly affect school districts, their governing boards, and all individuals who work with or volunteer in Montana schools.
This bill requires that law enforcement weapons used in officer-involved shootings be collected, tested, and documented by investigators for evidence purposes. Once the investigation concludes and no criminal charges are filed or pending against the officer, the weapon must be returned to the agency within seven days so it can be used again in the field. The law affects law enforcement agencies and investigators by establishing a clear timeline for returning seized firearms after they have been processed for evidence. It aims to balance the need for thorough evidence collection with the operational requirement that officers have access to their equipment.
This bill prohibits Montana local governments from enacting or enforcing extreme risk protection orders, commonly known as red flag laws, which temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others. It also bars localities from accepting state or federal funds designated for implementing such orders and establishes a $10,000 civil penalty for violations. The legislation defines these orders as court directives aimed at reducing firearm-related risks by restricting firearm possession or requiring surrender of weapons, while explicitly excluding standard domestic violence restraining orders. Additionally, the bill amends state law to clarify that local governments cannot exercise powers affecting the right to keep or bear arms.
This bill creates a new criminal offense for knowingly possessing stolen firearms or ammunition, allowing for up to 10 years in state prison upon conviction. It directly affects individuals who receive, store, sell, or dispose of stolen guns or ammo by making these actions a prosecutable crime. The legislation also amends existing youth court transfer laws to include possession of stolen firearms or ammunition among the offenses that can move a case from juvenile to adult court. This change ensures that possession of stolen weapons is treated as a serious offense that can trigger adult prosecution procedures for older youth. The bill focuses on establishing clear legal penalties and procedural rules without commenting on the effectiveness or necessity of these measures.
This bill prohibits the state from removing a person's right to keep and bear arms while they are awaiting trial for most criminal charges. It directly affects individuals charged with crimes by ensuring they retain their Second Amendment rights during the pre-trial period. The only exceptions to this protection are for those charged with forcible felonies or crimes involving the use of a weapon. The measure aims to prevent automatic disarmament pending trial unless specific serious charges are involved.
HB 493 establishes a new criminal offense for the purposeful and knowing possession, receipt, concealment, storage, sale, or disposal of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. Individuals convicted of possessing a stolen firearm may face imprisonment in state prison for up to 10 years. The bill also amends existing law to allow youths aged 16 or older accused of this new offense to be tried in adult court. Additionally, it includes possession of a stolen firearm or ammunition in the definition of offenses that can constitute a "pattern of criminal street gang activity."
HB 433 sought to protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms while awaiting trial. The bill proposed that a person could not be deprived of their Second Amendment or Montana constitutional firearm rights before a conviction. This protection would apply unless the individual was charged with a forcible felony or a crime of violence involving a weapon, as defined in statute 45-2-101. The bill aimed to preserve these rights during the pre-trial phase for most offenses.
This draft bill (LC 2907) aimed to increase criminal penalties for individuals convicted of stealing firearms. It would have directly affected people found guilty of firearm theft by imposing stricter sentencing requirements. The bill was assigned to a drafter in December 2024 but was placed on hold in January 2025 and ultimately died in the legislative process in May 2025 without becoming law.
HB 287 proposes to revise laws concerning dangerous drugs, primarily by introducing enhanced penalties. It establishes additional prison sentences for individuals who knowingly possess or use a firearm while committing offenses related to the criminal distribution or possession with intent to distribute dangerous drugs. The bill also sets specific, stricter penalties for the distribution or possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and similar substances, including mandatory minimum prison terms for certain quantities. Additionally, it clarifies that fines can be imposed alongside imprisonment for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
HB 622 proposes to revise protection order laws by establishing a new process for "extreme risk orders of protection." This procedure allows law enforcement officers, partners, or family members to petition a court to temporarily prohibit an individual from possessing or acquiring firearms. A court may issue such an order if it finds the person poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to themselves or others. If an order is granted, the individual's firearms must be surrendered, and any concealed weapon permits would be revoked, with provisions for their return under specific circumstances.
