By Dave Workman | Senior Editor
The Montana State Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against an effort by the City of Missoula to regulate firearms transactions by requiring so-called “universal background checks,” despite a state preemption law forbidding such local ordinances.
“This is a huge victory for Montana gun owners and everyone who cherishes freedom in Big Sky Country,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA in a prepared statement. “The unanimous ruling from Montana’s Supreme Court confirms that politicians cannot usurp a constitutional framework by contemptuously enacting gun control at the local level.”
Likewise, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms applauded the ruling. CCRKBA noted the decision affirms the validity and authority of state preemption statutes, which exist in some 40 states.
Under the Montana statute, local jurisdictions “may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.”
Here is the full text of the statute:
“Restriction On Local Government Regulation Of Firearms
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.
(2)(a) For public safety purposes, a city or town may regulate the discharge of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit has power to prevent and suppress the carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons to a public assembly, publicly owned building, park under its jurisdiction, or school, and the possession of firearms by convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, illegal aliens, and minors.
(b) Nothing contained in this section allows any government to prohibit the legitimate display of firearms at shows or other public occasions by collectors and others or to prohibit the legitimate transportation of firearms through any jurisdiction, whether in airports or otherwise.
(c) A local ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may not prohibit a legislative security officer who has been issued a concealed weapon permit from carrying a concealed weapon in the state capitol as provided in 45-8-317.”
According to The Missoulian, the state high court reversed a local judge’s earlier decision that upheld the controversial 2016 Missoula ordinance requiring background checks on all firearms transfers. In 2017, Montana Attorney General Tim Fox voided that ordinance on the grounds that the Missoula council lacked the authority to set the background check requirement. A lower court judge ruled against Fox, but the state high court reversed that decision and remanded the case back to “Missoula County District Court for a judgement in favor of the attorney general,” the newspaper reported.
The Montana ruling quickly caught the attention of Washington State rights activists as they battle local ordinances adopted in the cities of Seattle an d Edmonds requiring so-called “safe storage” of firearms. Unlike Montana’s Fox, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has not enforced his state’s preemption statute by taking action against either municipality. Instead, the Second Amendment Foundation and NRA jointly filed lawsuits against both cities under Washington’s 35-year-old preemption statute.
A judge in King County Superior Court (Seattle) rejected the lawsuit against that city, which is now on appeal.
However, a Snohomish County Superior Court judge ruled mostly in favor of the SAF/NRA lawsuit, saying the Edmonds ordinance “impermissibly regulates firearms in violation” of the state preemption statute.
Here’s what Washington’s law says:
“The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.”
The two Washington cases could wind up before that state’s Supreme Court. The Seattle case is already on appeal, and the City of Edmonds announced it will appeal its loss.
