Preserve right to keep and bear arms via a presumption of innocence
Summary
HB 433 would prohibit the state from depriving a person, before trial, of rights protected by the Montana Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms and the Second Amendment, except when the person is charged with a forcible felony or with a crime of violence using a weapon. In practical terms, the bill creates a presumption that a criminal defendant retains firearm rights while charges are pending, unless the charge falls within the bill’s stated exceptions.
The bill is framed as a pretrial rights measure and would be codified in Title 45, chapter 8, part 3, making it part of Montana’s criminal procedure framework. It would affect how courts and prosecutors handle firearm restrictions during the pendency of criminal charges, limiting the circumstances under which a defendant could be disarmed before conviction. The bill references existing statutory definitions of “forcible felony” and “crime of violence using a weapon,” tying its operation to current criminal law definitions.
Impact
HB 433 would narrow the state’s ability to restrict firearm possession or other arms-related rights before a conviction, except in cases involving forcible felonies or weapon-based violent crimes. It would likely affect judges, prosecutors, defendants, and any pretrial release or bail conditions that currently include firearm prohibitions, by requiring those restrictions to be consistent with the bill’s protections. Because it is intended for codification in Title 45, it would operate as a criminal-law limitation on pretrial deprivation of constitutional rights.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had support in the House Judiciary Committee, where it received a do-pass recommendation by a 12-8 vote, but it faced strong opposition on the House floor. It failed on second reading by a wide margin, 13-85, and a motion to amend also failed, 2-96. Overall, the voting history suggests the proposal was controversial and ultimately not accepted by the full House.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether a person charged with a crime should retain firearm rights pending trial, or whether courts should be able to impose broader pretrial restrictions for public safety. Supporters appear to view the bill as protecting the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights before conviction. Opponents likely objected to limiting judicial discretion and to the risk of allowing accused persons to retain access to weapons in cases that do not meet the bill’s narrow exceptions. The failed amendment vote suggests there was also disagreement over whether the bill needed modification rather than outright rejection.