Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Banking Financial Services Firearms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee splits over bill barring financial discrimination against firearm owners; lenders and insurers warn of unintended harms
Summary
Senate Bill 176, which would bar banks and insurers from denying services over firearm ownership and impose civil penalties, drew strong support from gun-rights advocates and heavy opposition from banks, credit unions and insurers concerned about vagueness, compliance costs and unintended consequences. The committee did not advance the bill.
Senate Bill 176, sponsored by Sen. Ken Bogner, would broadly prohibit financial and insurance entities from discriminating against individuals or businesses because of firearm possession or related commerce and would require nondiscrimination certificates from providers. The bill assigns civil penalties for violations and creates a private right of action for harmed parties.
Sponsor Sen. Ken Bogner cited national reports about "debanking," framed the bill as protecting Montanans exercising Second Amendment rights and asked for the committee’s support.
Proponents included Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and local supporters who described individual instances of payment processors or lenders that declined firearm-related transactions. Greg Lehman, an e-commerce consultant, said major online payment processors restrict firearms sales and that Montana should guard against spillover effects.
Opposition came from wide representation in the financial and insurance sectors. Charles Robison of the Montana Chamber of Commerce and Sam Sill of the Montana Bankers Association told the committee the bill’s language is vague and would expose local banks and credit unions to significant litigation risk. The insurance trade, including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and State Farm, warned the bill could interfere with the actuarial rating process, create administrative burdens and risk insurers leaving the state market. The Montana Tavern Association and Gaming Industry Association also said the measure could jeopardize liability coverage if insurers decline certain risks.
Objectors noted the bill’s penalty structure — civil fines up to $5,000 per day for violations — could be punitive and disproportionate, and they asked for clearer definitions of "discriminate" and "because of firearms or firearms accessories."
Committee members heard requests to tighten the bill’s exclusions for private-property owners and employers; the sponsor said he would consider amendments. When the committee took executive action, members did not advance the bill; the matter was ultimately tabled.
Ending: The bill remains alive but paused in committee while sponsors and opponents continue negotiations over definitions and practical impacts on local financial services.
