Allow antique gambling to be used for living history events and casino nights for fundraising purposes
SB 179 would create a new “Wild West Casino Nights Act” allowing certain nonprofit living history organizations, individual living history volunteers, and history reenacting organizations to conduct fundraising events using antique or reproduction gambling devices and a broader set of live gambling activities. The bill defines a “wild west casino night” as a fundraising event using imitation money purchased by participants, and it authorizes activities such as live card games, bingo, keno, raffles, antique gambling devices, and even devices otherwise associated with illegal gambling enterprises when used in the historical context allowed by the bill.
The bill also amends Montana’s gambling statutes to carve out exceptions for these historical events. It adds new permit authority and a $25 application fee, limits each permit holder to one permit per year, requires the events to be run only by unpaid members of the nonprofit, caps event length, restricts prizes to cash or merchandise, and limits administrative expenses to 50% of proceeds. It further exempts qualifying living history groups from certain gambling taxes, permit fees, and criminal penalties, and it directs the Department of Justice to adopt rules governing applications and game play. The bill also revises definitions of antique gambling devices, illegal gambling enterprise, public gambling, and live card games to accommodate historical reenactments and related fundraising activities.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears mixed to negative in the legislative process. Although it received unanimous support in one initial committee vote, it later failed a do-pass committee vote and a subsequent motion on the Senate floor, and the bill ultimately died in process. That voting history suggests the concept had some early interest but did not maintain enough support to advance.
The main points of contention likely centered on whether the bill was an appropriate and sufficiently limited exception to Montana’s gambling restrictions. Supporters appear to have framed it as a way to promote historical education and nonprofit fundraising, while opponents likely had concerns about expanding access to gambling devices and games that are otherwise illegal, even in a limited historical setting. The bill’s inclusion of roulette, faro, slot machines, craps, and other traditionally prohibited games, along with exemptions from fees and penalties, likely made the scope of the carve-out a significant issue.
SB 179 would have amended multiple sections of Title 23, chapter 5, MCA, to create a new statutory category for historical reenactment gambling events and to exempt qualifying living history organizations from several existing gambling restrictions, fees, taxes, and penalties. It would have expanded the legal use of antique gambling devices and certain reproduction devices, added a new permit process administered by the Department of Justice, and required rulemaking to govern these events. The bill would also have modified definitions and enforcement provisions so that historical fundraising events are treated differently from ordinary gambling operations.
The bill’s sentiment in the legislature appears to have been cautiously favorable at first but ultimately unfavorable overall. It passed one early committee vote unanimously, but then failed a do-pass vote and later lost a floor motion by a wider margin, indicating that support eroded or was insufficient to overcome concerns. The final outcome—died in process—suggests the proposal did not achieve broad legislative consensus.
The central contention was the balance between historical education/fundraising and the expansion of gambling exceptions. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a narrow, nonprofit-focused allowance for living history events, while critics likely worried it opened the door to broader gambling activity by authorizing games and devices normally prohibited, including slot machines, roulette, faro, and craps. Additional likely concerns involved the exemption from permit fees, taxes, and criminal penalties, the use of imitation money and cash prizes, and whether the events could be sufficiently limited to avoid becoming commercial gambling operations.