Did Bullock lie about "Castle Doctrine" to voters and the media?

[katqanna]

I received a forward of a "news release" yesterday from someone named Gary Marbut for MTSSA. I Don't know him, just for the record, nor did I go to or watch the Bullock-Gianforte debate in Billings the other evening, I think I was finishing Larry Jents video. And though I lived in Montana in 2009, I was not involved in hunting angling conservation, I was finishing a reference book on ancient archaeology and their comparative religions of the Mediterranean, Middle East and Mesopotamia. So what I bring up is strictly from looking up the history last night, having no experiential memory of the subject, but some of you might.

Marbut wrote:

In the Billings debate between challenger Greg Gianforte and Governor Steve Bullock, the candidates were asked a question about their support for the right to keep and bear arms. In his response, Governor Bullock claimed, "I've worked with the Legislature to make sure that you can protect your home and your property by passing the castle doctrine."

Gary Marbut, author of Gun Laws of Montana commented, "Bullock's statement is flat wrong. Montana's castle doctrine law, 'Defense of an occupied structure,' has been on the Montana law books since the Bannack Statutes of Montana territorial days, about 1865. That existing law was most recently clarified in 2009 in a bill signed by Governor Schweitzer, before Bullock was Governor."

"It's pretty sleazy," Marbut continued, "for Bullock to claim credit for a law that was enacted just after the Civil War, long before he was born. That sure makes a person wonder about his answers to other questions posed by panelists during the debate, such as the one 'Have you ever been involved in an extra-marital affair?' "

When introducing his position on the right to keep and bear arms, Bullock said, "In Montana we use our guns for both self protection and for our public lands."

I began looking into the "Castle Doctrine", this is MCA 45-3-102, which according to the footnotes was last amended on 2009. I know that Bullock was not Governor in 2009, but he was the State Attorney General and I know they can write opinions and have to get involved in bills and such. So I began looking into his attorney general position and that date, sure enough an article came up with Bullock, as Attorney General, being quoted,

"Through a lot of hard work and compromise, we have a bill that affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms, and protects the men and women serving in law enforcement," Attorney General Steve Bullock said in April when endorsing the bill.

I suspected he may have been very involved in that, promoting its passage and signing into law by Schweitzer.

Now if you read the article, MTSSA is cited as well,

Ironically, HB 228 was proposed and backed by the National Rifle Association and Montana Shooting Sports Association as a way to “clarify” what gun owners view as gray areas in case law. Mainly, it states that people don’t have to first run away before using a gun in self-defense, and those who do use a weapon in such a situation should not be presumed guilty by police.

When a shooting took place in 2014 that involved the "castle doctrine", Marbut was interviewed:

The architect of Montana’s so-called “castle doctrine” law, which gives a person legal immunity to use deadly force against an intruder into their domicile, said the law does not apply to regular motor vehicles – but that the state’s self-defense laws still allow for lethal force under certain circumstances.

Gary Marbut, president of the Missoula-based Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the book “Gun Laws of Montana,” was one of the principal lobbyists for and writers of the state’s castle doctrine law, which permits lethal force without requiring a person inside their home to first attempt to flee or call law enforcement...

“In general, in some states there is an obligation to flee or retreat, but statutorily Montana doesn’t have that,” he explained. “When we were writing these laws, we prevented that from leaking into Montana case law. A person is not required to summon law enforcement if lethal force is justified. A person is authorized under case law to use lethal force if they believe they or another person is at risk. That applies wherever, you don’t have to be in your home. The castle doctrine doesn’t give a lot of additional leeway, just that you can use force to prevent a forcible felony in a structure.”

Remember, Marbuts statement above concerning Bullock - "It's pretty sleazy," Marbut continued, "for Bullock to claim credit for a law that was enacted just after the Civil War, long before he was born? I think this is hypocritical, considering Marbut has claimed authorship of the very same "castle doctrine law".

After reading through a law case last night, in which Bullock was the Attorney General, citing HB 228 bill cleanup committee involving Sen. Larry Jent, I decided to ask Larry about this during our conversation earlier today. I was correct in my speculation that Attorney General Bullock and his office were very much involved in HB 228, the Castle Doctrine Law, getting passed. Jent said it came in with a whole lot of crazy, the bill had been referred to as a "cop killer bill", it was dangerous to law enforcement and that Attorney General Bullock and his office were very much involved in cleaning it up to a point that it could receive bipartisan support, was then signed by Governor Schweitzer into law.

Based on what I was looking into, I don't think Bullock lied at all. Jent was at the Bullock-Gianforte debate. He said Bullock didn't lie, he just ran two statements together, which might confuse some.

I just thought the pieces laid out properly might be helpful to some.

 

[MT_elk]

I didn't hear the debate. However, this is great information to clarify the subject. Thanks for posting.

 

[u1299]

All I'll say concerning Marbut because of a disagreement the two of us had a few years ago over his position on public lands and hunting, is: IMO he's the most worthless foul mouth little creep on the planet and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him or believe one word that ever comes out of his disgusting mouth. Like I said that's my opinion only and I guess I was right to feel that way.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I would not put a lick of credibility in much of ANYTHING that Gary Marbut said, unless he stood up and told everyone that "I am a right wing nut job that is crazier than a shithouse rat".

 

[onpoint]

When it comes to being a useful organization to the average public hunter, MTSSA is a Brown Decoy Organization.
Decide for yourself what the color brown represents.

 

[MTGomer]

I would not put a lick of credibility in much of ANYTHING that Gary Marbut said, unless he stood up and told everyone that "I am a right wing nut job that is crazier than a shithouse rat".

To his credit, His book, 'Gun Laws of Montana' is a good one, and there should be one like that for every state. Spells out exactly what is and is not legal, with the MCA code referenced. I know that's off this topic, however.