Depends on what you mean. If Montana currently had no speed limits, and someone was proposing that Montana impose speed limits, should such a motion then place the burden on the opponents to defend the current practices, or should it be on the proponents that are proposing new practice? Trying to say, "well everyone else is doing it, so it is 'the norm' and we should just follow their lead," is rather disingenuous. You can't propose a new idea counter to an existing idea, then try to push the onus of proof onto the supporters of the existing idea while skirting any proof of the new idea.

Similarly if the tables were turned, the proponents of removing the speed limits should have the burden of proof placed on them as well.