Will This New Firearm Law Really Make Montana Safer?

A summary of the key information is provided at the bottom of the article.

BUTTE, MT - Montana lawmakers are considering a bill that could significantly change when and how firearm possession can be restricted.

Get our free mobile app

House Bill 433, introduced in the Montana House of Representatives, aims to prevent judges from prohibiting firearm possession as a condition of bail—except in cases involving violent felonies or crimes committed with a weapon.

The proposed legislation has sparked a heated debate, with proponents arguing it upholds Second Amendment rights, while opponents warn it could put victims, particularly in domestic violence cases, at greater risk.

So, will this law actually make Montana safer? Or could it open the door to more danger in an already gun-friendly state?

The Argument for House Bill 433

Supporters of the bill, including Rep. George Nikolakakos (R-Great Falls), say it protects the constitutional rights of Montanans.

They argue that individuals accused of nonviolent crimes shouldn’t have their gun rights stripped before they’ve been convicted of a crime.

• Presumption of Innocence – Proponents believe that until someone is found guilty, their rights—including the right to bear arms—should remain intact.

• Preventing Judicial Overreach – Some lawmakers argue that judges currently have too much discretion in restricting firearms as a condition of bail, even for offenses that don’t involve violence.

• Gun Rights as a Fundamental Freedom – Given Montana’s strong pro-gun culture, supporters see any attempt to limit firearm possession, even temporarily, as an overstep.

Nikolakakos and others backing the bill insist that it maintains public safety by still allowing restrictions in cases where violence is a known factor.

The Concerns Against the Bill

However, opposition to HB 433 is strong, particularly from law enforcement officials and prosecutors who deal with the realities of crime on a daily basis.

• Domestic Violence Fears – Benjamin Halverson, a domestic violence prosecutor, has voiced concerns that the bill could make it harder to protect victims in dangerous situations. Domestic disputes are often unpredictable, and restricting access to firearms can be a key measure in preventing escalation.

• Law Enforcement Opposition – The Montana Department of Justice and the Montana Police Protective Association have come out against the bill, arguing that it could strip courts of an important tool used to prevent potentially violent situations.

• Judicial Discretion at Stake – Critics argue that removing a judge’s ability to determine firearm restrictions on a case-by-case basis could lead to unintended consequences, particularly in situations where red flags exist, even if no violent crime has been committed yet.

Those against the bill warn that the consequences of allowing unrestricted firearm access—especially in high-risk scenarios—could outweigh the benefits of maintaining broader gun rights for those awaiting trial.

What’s Next for House Bill 433?

As of now, HB 433 is still under review by the House Judiciary Committee.

A vote has not yet been taken, and it remains to be seen whether it will gain enough support to move forward.

If it passes the committee stage, the bill will then go to a vote in the full Montana House of Representatives before heading to the Senate for consideration.

Should it clear both chambers, it will land on Governor Greg Gianforte’s desk for final approval or veto.

Given the passionate debate surrounding the bill, its fate may come down to how lawmakers balance constitutional rights with public safety concerns.

Does This Bill Truly Make Montana Safer?

At the heart of the debate is the question of what "safety" really means.

Proponents argue that protecting constitutional rights strengthens safety in a broader sense, ensuring that government overreach doesn’t erode fundamental freedoms.

Opponents, meanwhile, warn that reducing judicial oversight in firearm restrictions could lead to increased violence, particularly in domestic situations.

With Montana’s deeply rooted gun culture and a political landscape that often leans toward protecting Second Amendment rights, HB 433’s outcome will be closely watched—not just within the state, but across the country.

So, will this new law make Montana safer? That depends on who you ask. What’s clear is that the discussion surrounding it is far from over.

Summary:

House Bill 433, currently under review in the Montana House of Representatives, seeks to limit judges from restricting firearm possession for individuals charged with crimes, except in cases involving violent felonies or crimes committed with a weapon. Supporters argue the bill protects Second Amendment rights and prevents judicial overreach, while opponents, including law enforcement and domestic violence advocates, warn it could increase risks, particularly in domestic disputes. The bill is awaiting a vote in the House Judiciary Committee before potentially moving forward in the legislative process. The debate continues over whether it will enhance public safety or create new dangers.