I don’t think that schools should be totally gun-free zones. While I get that Bruen said that sensitive places could be gun-free, and schools are probably about as sensitive a place as you can name, I don’t think that barring lawful carry in schools for staff and parents is a winning strategy. After all, how many school shootings have we seen despite the schools having this status?
Yeah, plenty.
But the truth is that in most places, schools are as off-limits as they come. At least they are when it’s K-12 schools. Colleges are a different matter in many states, but below that level? The rules are firm.
And those rules include a “buffer zone” of sorts that prohibits the carrying of firearms around the school, regardless of most any other factor.
And Montana accidentally exposed a loophole and made things right, even if that’s not quite what they were trying to do.
Sometimes the most consequential gun control stories don’t start with a bill banning firearms. They start with lawmakers trying to expand freedom — and discovering that the Constitution doesn’t bend the way critics expect it to.
That is exactly what just happened in Montana.
In an effort to strengthen the right to carry, Montana lawmakers may have effectively erased gun-free school zones everywhere except on school property itself. Not through activism. Not through litigation designed to gut federal law. But through their own permitless carry statutes — and a federal court noticed.
The result is a ruling that has left gun-control advocates furious, school administrators uneasy, and Second Amendment supporters pointing out an inconvenient truth: when the state recognizes the right to carry as a right, federal carve-outs start to fall apart.
It all boils down to a guy who would go for a walk near a school. Sometimes, he’d carry a gun openly, and other times, it would be concealed. Local police told the school that he wasn’t breaking any state law, so they couldn’t do anything about it. The school moved kids away from the man and tried to erect visual barriers so no one would see him.
Eventually, the feds stepped in, arrested him, and saw the whole thing thrown out.
Why?
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because Montana statutorily authorizes concealed carry for eligible citizens, those citizens qualify for the federal licensing exception.
In plain terms: if everyone is licensed by law, then everyone qualifies for the exemption.
The court dismissed the charges and made it clear that the outcome wasn’t an accident; it was the logical result of Montana’s legislative choices.
The ruling emphasized that Montana did not delegate licensing authority to agencies or local officials. The Legislature itself granted the authority. Congress, the court said, did not clearly prohibit states from doing that.
As a result of that ruling, though, gun-free school zones are confined exclusively to the school itself, not the area around the school.
If schools are going to be gun-free zones, this is how it should be. The idea that the area around the school is also gun-free is a major problem because, frankly, people travel by those schools all the time. They have to in order to get to where they’re going, and unless they’re licensed under state law, they may be committing a felony.
The “buffer zone” thing has always been wrong, but Montana accidentally fixed it for residents there. Instead of just saying a license isn’t needed, they licensed everyone, which had an unintended but positive effect regarding the whole school zone thing.
Maybe other states should address this via their own constitutional carry laws. Most didn’t take quite the same approach as Montana, but they could make that happen and change things once and for all.
It would be a win for gun rights, sanity, and everything else decent in the universe, and the anti-gunners would still have their allegedly gun-free schools.
Again, not that it seems to do much good.
Editor’s Note: To celebrate Christmas and ring in 2026, Bearing Arms is matching our biggest sale ever on VIP memberships. Now through January 1, until 11:59 pm PT, receive 74% off a VIP membership using promo code MERRY74!
Read the full article here
23 Comments
Interesting that Montana’s effort to expand freedom revealed flaws in gun-free zone laws. A win for Constitutional rights.
This highlights how complex gun laws are. A well-intentioned law can sometimes create loopholes that benefit gun rights.
This incident could set a precedent for other states to review their own gun laws and consider similar amendments.
Let’s hope so. Many states could benefit from updating their outdated regulations.
It’s refreshing to see a state take a common-sense approach to gun rights. Maybe others will follow.
Schools are indeed sensitive places, but instead of creating gun-free zones, we need better security measures.
I wonder if other states will see this as an opportunity to reform their own gun laws in a similar way.
They should. It’s a great example of how to balance safety and rights.
I’m curious, how does Montana’s new rule differ from other states’ gun-free zones around schools?
This is a positive step. It’s important to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and others, especially in schools.
But what about the risks of misfire or accidental shootings in school settings?
Interesting take on Montana’s accidental correction. It’s a reminder that sometimes the best changes come from unforeseen circumstances.
Exactly, unintended consequences can work in our favor sometimes.
Hopefully other states take note and review their own laws.
Montana’s accidental fix might just be the push other states need to re-evaluate their gun-free zones.
It’s about time. Many of these laws are outdated and ineffective.
School shootings remain a serious issue. Maybe allowing lawful carry in schools for staff and parents could deter some attacks.
But wouldn’t more guns just escalate the situation further?
Sometimes the best outcomes come from mistakes. Montana’s accidental fix could be a game-changer for gun rights.
Montana’s move shows that the Constitution is firm. It’s not about bending it but interpreting it correctly.
That’s a great point. Sometimes laws need to be challenged to see what truly stands.
It’s surprising how often unintended loopholes lead to positive changes in legislation.
True, sometimes the best solutions come from unexpected places.