05/19/2026
Dear MSSA Friends,
The Montana Department of Natural Resourced and Conservation (DNRC) is taking comment on a petition for a closure of public lands in Gallatin County that would almost certainly include a firearm discharge ban. The last time this happened, DNRC agreed with the petitioners and invoked the requested shooting ban on public land.
Pasted below is the comment I submitted for MSSA on this proposal. I highly recommend that you submit comment also. If you want to keep your comment short, you can just say you agree with the comment submitted by MSSA. Or, you can say that and offer further comment. Comments can be submitted online at:
https://forms.office.com/g/5mxXQ5DeeA
In case you want to dig into this more, DNRC's full explanation of this, including a public hearing place and date and a link to the actual petition for closure are all at:
https://dnrc.mt.gov/News/dnrc-news/Notice-of-petition-and-hearing-Hatter-3S-4E-S62.pdf
Thanks loads for your support on this.
Best wishes,
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
-----------------
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Bozeman Unit Office
2273 Boot Hill Court, Ste 110
Bozeman, MT 59715
Subject: Comment in re petition for closure of
Township 3 South, Range 4 East,
Section 6: Gov. Lots 3-7, SE4NW4, SE4, E2SW4
Gallatin County, Montana.
I am the President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) which is the primary political advocate for Montana firearm owners. I am accepted in state and federal courts as an expert concerning use of force, firearm safety, and related topics. I am the author of the book Gun Laws of Montana, the accepted standard for that topic. Finally, I grew up on a 5,000-acre working cattle ranch in Montana, so I have first hand experience with problems rural landowners face such as trespass, littering, and more.
My specific area of interest is in the rights, privileges, and opportunities of and for affected area firearm owners. It is assumed that a general closure of any state lands under the petition would constitute an effective firearm discharge ban. This comment includes discussion of the sufficiency of the petition, issues of legal and constitutional nature, and practical issues.
Practical issues
MSSA has been actively involved in promoting safe and suitable places for Montana gun owners to shoot since the late 1980s. We initiated the Shooting Range Development Program in 1989 for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to make 50/50 matching grants available to help local clubs develop shooting ranges. In 1999, we offered the Legislature the Shooting Range Development Act, which was passed and signed into law. This law formalized the SRDP that began in 1989.
In 1993, we brought a bill to the Legislature for the Shooting Range Protection Act, which was passed and became law. The SRPA protects ranges from closure because of common allegations such as noise or planning and zoning. This Act clearly expresses the state's public policy interest in protecting shooting opportunities for Montana people.
We achieved passage of a bill to allow use of easements to secure shooting range safety zones. MSSA has coached numerous clubs about shooting range design and preparation of fundable range improvement grant applications.
In short, MSSA has been immersed in advocating for public shooting opportunities for decades.
It has become apparent that the Montana population most underserved with places to shoot is in Gallatin County. The insufficiency of dedicated places to shoot serves to increase shooting on public lands, which can spawn land use conflicts.
The proposed closure will only make this problem worse since it will push recreational shooters onto a shrinking inventory of available public land. The proposed closure is not a solution. It will only exaggerate an ongoing problem that needs a different solution.
Deficient petition
The petition states a laundry list of problems, including rutted roads, fence damage, littering, and more. An inference is made that this is all being done by recreational shooters. Yet, there is little, if any, proof that recreational shooters are solely or even mostly responsible.
Every rural landowner experiences occasional problems with trespassing, littering, and damaged fences. That, unfortunately, is universal. Every population has members who are inconsiderate and who disrespect property ownership and the land.
It is doubtful that whatever authorities might enforce this proposed closure would have the resources to catch and educate or punish all irresponsible violators of a closure. Such enforcement would fall primarily on the few who are detected. Those would be recreational shooters who's presence would be announced by the sound of gunshots. Thus, enforcement, as a practical matter, would be primarily against recreational shooters. Enforcers would be much less likely to be alerted to litterers, fence damagers, or people inconsiderately rutting the landscape.
In short, it is recreational shooters who would disproportionally bear the brunt of enforcement. The petition is deficient because the petition offers no direct proof that all harms alleged are caused by recreational shooters, but recreational shooters are likely to bear the brunt of enforcement.
Legal and constitutional issues
In response to MSSA comment on a previously proposed DNRC public land firearm discharge ban, DNRC responded that it is not qualified to evaluate constitutional issues. This comes from public officials for whom a condition of holding public office is an oath to uphold the Constitution. I immediately reject the excuse that DNRC officials cannot understand the Constitution since their oath of office requires exactly that they do.
I also do not excuse counsel for petitioners, who is an attorney and should know better. Counsel for petitioners argues that because various alleged harms must be addressed, then, among the remedies needed, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) may be violated ("infringed" or "called into question") by a government entity. This is what is called an "interest balancing" approach. This approach, which looks at various levels of "scrutiny" in evaluating government encroachment on fundamental, individual rights, no longer applies to any rights the people have reserved to themselves under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or under Article II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen on June 23, 2022. In that decision, the Court declared that "interest balancing" may no longer be used in deciding if a government encroachment into the RKBA is permissible.
Rather, the Court held, first it must be determined if the proposed or actual government action affects the RKBA in any way. If it does, then the burden immediately shifts to the government to provide similar or analog restrictions from the founding era of 1791 (or perhaps in Montana's case, 1889) that show that the Founders tolerated such a restriction under their then understanding of the RKBA.
The public lands closure proposed by petitioners will, unless specifically excluded from the closure, prevent recreational shooters from shooting on public land. Clearly, this affects the RKBA, since the RKBA includes the right to use fi****ms. Thus, the question will move on to the second step of the Bruen test.
Can the government show laws or regulations from the founding era prohibiting shooting on undeveloped public lands? The answer to that is -- almost certainly not.
While there may be some founding era laws such as prohibiting firearm discharge inside city limits, prohibiting discharge by drunken celebrants, or prohibiting discharge in specific effort to terrorize people, the reverse was ubiquitous in the founding era. There are many documented examples of organized shooting practice, militia musters, and fi****ms use occurring on village greens, commons, and town squares in the colonial and founding era, including before and after 1791.
Thus, DNRC in response to petitioners petition, will not be able to legally support a closure that prohibits shooting on public, state land.
Said more directly, DNRC lacks the authority to adopt or enforce a prohibition on firearm discharge on undeveloped public lands.
Conclusion
Gallatin County is noticeably underserved with places for people to shoot. The proposed closure will only make this problem worse and further concentrate shooting on a shrinking available public land area. There is no evidence that recreational shooters are the sole or majority source of the problems alleged by petitioners. Yet recreational shooters are likely to bear the main brunt of any closure enforcement. Finally, under the current scheme of law, DNRC lacks authority to impose a firearm discharge ban as a part of the closure petitioners request.
For these reasons, MSSA adamantly opposes any closure in response to the petition that would affect recreational shooting on state-owned public land.
We are willing to collaborate with DNRC about possibly tolerable firearm discharge bans in special places, such as well-defined campgrounds. We are also willing to work with and advise interested people, groups, and governmental entities in the Gallatin County area about developing safe and suitable places for people to shoot and thereby reduce conflicts on both public and private lands.
Submitted by:
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
--
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com
