Montana Firearms History: From Territorial Laws to Constitutional Carry
-
Montana's legal arc on carry is one of the more interesting stories in American firearms law — not because it ended up permissive, but because of where it started.
The territory's first legislature passed a law banning the carrying of concealed deadly weapons within the limits of any town in the territory. This was not a federal imposition — it was local frontier pragmatism.
That framing matters. The guys who wrote that law weren't anti-gun — they were running gold camps full of drunk strangers and they were trying to keep their communities functional. The concealed carry ban wasn't ideology, it was triage. That distinction gets lost in a lot of modern debates.
The battle is documented evidence that many of the warriors at Little Bighorn were better-armed than the soldiers they faced — the Winchester Model 1873 outranged and outpaced the single-shot Springfield Model 1873 Trapdoor carbines carried by Custer's troopers. That tactical mismatch contributed directly to the outcome.
Most people think of Little Bighorn as a numbers story. It was partly an equipment story. A lever-action repeater against a single-shot trapdoor — that's not a fair fight at any range, and the Army brass knew the Trapdoor had problems before the battle. This comes up every time someone on a range tries to argue that rate of fire doesn't matter in a defensive situation.
The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property... shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
The 1889 constitution language is specific and deliberate — they listed what was protected and explicitly left concealed carry outside that protection. That's not ambiguity, that's drafting. The fact that Montana then spent 130 years working back toward permitless carry despite that explicit carve-out says a lot about how the culture shifted as the frontier closed and the ranching and outdoor lifestyle became the dominant identity rather than the mining camp chaos that prompted the original restrictions.
Firearms here aren't a political statement for most residents — they're a practical tool, the same way a truck or a chain saw is a practical tool.
You hear this from Montana residents constantly, and it rings true if you've spent any time there. It also explains why the regulatory pendulum swung the direction it did — when your nearest gun store is 90 miles away and you run livestock on a few thousand acres, carry laws written for urban density feel like someone else's problem imposed on your address.
For those of you who've traveled out to Montana to hunt or shoot — how does the practical, tool-based attitude toward firearms there compare to what you run into at your home range or local gun shop, and do you think that cultural difference actually shows up in how people handle and talk about guns?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login