Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary hears HB 433, a bill aimed at limiting pretrial firearm removal; safety advocates warn of risks
Summary
Representative George Nicolo Kakos presented HB 433 to limit judges’ ability to order pretrial firearm removal in many nonviolent cases; gun-rights backers argued for due process after federal precedent while county attorneys, prosecutors, sheriffs and domestic‑violence advocates urged caution and sought additional carve‑outs and amendments.
Representative George Nicolo Kakos framed HB 433 around the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms is a conditional privilege or a fundamental right that requires heightened due process protections. He said boilerplate court orders removing firearms after nonviolent accusations can carry long-term federal consequences for Montanans.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, supported the bill and invoked recent federal cases, saying "The Rahimi decision held that a person cannot be deprived of firearms rights without due process." He argued Montana law should be consistent with evolving federal jurisprudence.
Opponents—led by the Montana County Attorneys Association, county prosecutors, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Montana Police Protective Association and the Montana Department of Justice—warned the bill as drafted would remove tools judges and law enforcement rely on to protect victims and communities. Brian Thompson (county attorneys) and Ben Halverson (a domestic‑violence prosecutor for Billings) listed crimes and scenarios (partner/family member assault, probation violations, order‑of‑protection violations, drug distribution linked to other criminal activity) they said would be excluded, increasing risk; Halverson handed the committee an exhibit describing a local fatality in which firearm removal might have prevented a homicide.
Sponsor Kakos said he had worked with county attorneys and law‑enforcement stakeholders and proposed an amendment narrowing the bill to include defined "crime of violence" categories (citing 46‑18‑104) and other carve‑outs; he indicated willingness to add temporary protection and other specified offenses. The committee heard detailed back‑and‑forth about which offenses to include in an exception list and whether the amendment would address prosecutors’ concerns.
The hearing closed after extensive questioning; no committee final vote is recorded in the hearing transcript for the initial hearing portion. Sponsor emphasized he will work with stakeholders on amendments.
Next steps: Further drafting and amendment work expected before committee consideration.
