If I recall correctly the first version of AK shall-issue had municipal opt-out, if we did it only lasted a year or so til it was fixed in the Legislature. There's no reason MT can't do the same on the opt-out and the training requirement.
I was trying to confirm AK's carry history and found a thread at highroad.org from 2003 when "Vermont Carry (with permit available)" was still just a bill in the Legislature.
Amazingly there was some half-hearted support for what we will now probably call a "Montana Carry" amendment ("Permitless CC, with permit available, but with training required")
if it was necessary to pass our law.
I forgot that was ever a fear.
So, "Montana Carry" will be "permit available for reciprocity but not required for concealed carry in state, but proof of a training class is required to be possessed while CC-ing without the permit".
At least the training isn't recorded by the state anywhere so it can't be used as backdoor registration.
"Montana Carry" will be a "third way" between standard "Shall-Issue" and "AK/AZ/WY Carry" (no permit or training required for carry but available for reciprocity) and "Vermont Carry" (no training required and no permit available at all). It might be more attractive or realistic for some states that can't seem to muster the votes for true AK/AZ/WY Carry.
If it can be provided free or cheap, there's worse burdens in the world than requiring people to get training they should be getting voluntarily anyway, if it increases the number of states going permitless.
Here's the link from back when having five (six if NH passes) permitless of any kind states was just a fantasy.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=22408&page=2&highlight=alaska+carry+history