Sponsor argues HB 4‑33 would protect gun rights during pretrial periods; prosecutors and law‑enforcement groups warn of safety risks

Representative George Nicola Kakos opened the hearing on House Bill 4‑33 by framing the legislation as a question of due process and protection of Second Amendment rights for people accused but not convicted of crimes.

“Do we as Montanans believe the right to keep and bear arms is a conditional privilege, or do we believe it’s a fundamental right that should be afforded due process and the presumption of innocence?” he asked the committee.

Sponsor and proponents Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, testified in favor and argued recent federal court decisions mean state law should respect due‑process protections before stripping firearms from an accused person. Tiffany Susan, a private citizen, described a nonviolent example in which a tax audit could trigger an investigation that might lead to loss of firearms rights under current practice.

Opposition and public‑safety concerns County attorneys, sheriffs and prosecutors testified in unified opposition. Brian Thompson of the Montana County Attorneys Association listed crimes the association believed must remain grounds to restrict firearms — including violent offenses, domestic violence, violations of protection orders, drug distribution and other crimes that may not be classified as forcible felonies under the bill’s initial draft.

Bill amendments and sponsor responses The sponsor offered and circulated an amendment he said would tighten the bill and add enumerated exceptions, and he told the committee he was willing to work with prosecutors to add specific offenses, temporary protection provisions and qualifying restraining orders. Department of Justice and county‑level prosecutors said they appreciated the sponsor’s willingness to negotiate but maintained concern about public safety. Police associations and domestic‑violence prosecutors described cases in which firearms left in an offender’s possession led to homicides or elevated suicide risk.

Legal context Witnesses referenced recent federal cases on Second Amendment limits and due process, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision cited by proponents (Rahimi), and discussed the practical problems when a court order barring possession ends up entered in federal databases and effectively creates a permanent federal prohibition even if a state case is later dismissed or the defendant acquitted.

Committee questions and next steps Committee members asked whether the amendment addressed specific concerns raised by prosecutors; the sponsor said he intended additional drafting to include temporary protection orders and other narrow exceptions. No committee vote was recorded in the hearing transcript; the sponsor said he intended to continue working with stakeholders on language.

Ending: The hearing featured a clear split between constitutional arguments about due process and strongly expressed public‑safety concerns from prosecutors, sheriffs and domestic‑violence advocates; the sponsor said he would continue to work on amendments.