Montana Bill Expanding Shooting Sports Opportunities Draws More Debate Than You Might Expect

Montana is most definitely Second Amendment-friendly territory, so the big debate over the language in HB 899 wasn’t about whether or not the state should spend taxpayer dollars to increase access to a public range. 

Instead, the back-and-forth between lawmakers and those testifying about the bill during last Thursday’s meeting of the House Business and Labor Committee was about how best to accomplish that goal. 

Originally the bill established a State Shooting Complex Development and Oversight Task Force, which, as the title suggests, envisions the creation of one large shooting sports facility somewhere in the state. But critics of the plan argue that Montanans would be better off with using the money to build more ranges around the state; smaller in scope, to be sure, but providing additional access points for gun owners to safely train with their firearms without having to drive for several hours. 

“Please use the money that we provide, at least a portion of it to build more ranges or perhaps improve those you have. Investing in the future of hunting and shooting sports is why we pay the money,” said Nephi Cole, Firearm Industry Trade Association of America director of government and state affairs.

“What Montana needs is a safe and simple place for people to shoot all over the state and not one central shooting complex. It’s going to be hours and hours away from Montana gun owners,” said Gary Marbut, Montana Shooting Sports Association president.

It appears those concerns were heard loud and clear by committee members, because HB 899 no longer refers to a shooting complex, except in one paragraph that directs members of the task force to “review all shooting facilities in the region and develop preliminary specifications, plans, and features for the Montana state shooting complex.”

Everywhere other mention of a “state shooting complex” in the bill, however, has been replaced by the phrase “facilities and improvements,” including the name of the task force, which would now be titled the Facilities and Improvements Development and Oversight Task Force.

If Montana already had a robust number of public ranges, then adding a big complex that could host regional, national, and even international shooting events would make sense. But while the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife provides grants and assistance to privately operated ranges, they don’t oversee any public ranges whatsoever. I agree with Marbut that the first priority for lawmakers should be to develop a series of publicly-operated and state-owned shooting facilities across the state; in both population-rich areas around Billings, Missoula, and Bozeman as well as more remote locations in Big Sky country. I think it would be beneficial to ensure that these wouldn’t just be outdoor ranges, but would include some regional indoor ranges as well. Given the harshness of Montana’s winters, an indoor range, even if somewhat limited in size, would be a big benefit to gun owners across the state.

Of course, there’s no reason the Montana legislature couldn’t do both: build out a a significant number of smaller ranges accessible to the public and create a world-class shooting sports complex that could bring in thousands of competitors every year, which in turn would generate revenue that could go back into range creation and maintenance. The only thing stopping lawmakers would be the price tag, but I think the tax dollars generated by a large shooting sports complex would at least offset that cost, and could help fund the upkeep of the smaller, more numerous ranges Marbut and Cole want to see spread throughout the state.