Colorado lawmakers want gun owners exposed to civil liability

DENVER Tue Feb 5, 2013 9:37pm EST

Related Topics

DENVER (Reuters) - Owners and makers of assault-style weapons would face civil liability under a package of measures unveiled on Tuesday by top lawmakers in Colorado, a state shaken by some of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history.

The bills, introduced by Democrats who control the state legislature, could push Colorado to the forefront of a national gun control debate reignited by several mass shootings last year, including massacres of schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, and moviegoers in suburban Denver.

Other states such as New York have moved to further restrict military-style assault weapons. But if the measures become law, Colorado would hold owners, manufacturers and distributors of firearms more accountable for gun violence.

Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons, and state statutes that shield manufacturers, importers and dealers from such liability would be lifted.

Handguns, bolt-action rifles and shotguns would be exempt from the measure.

If passed it would put Colorado at odds with a 2005 federal law protecting gun manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.

"Coloradans have asked us to lead on this issue, not to stand idly by while children are being gunned down in schools and movie theaters," state Senate President John Morse said at a news conference in Denver.

The Democrats, who hold a majority in both houses of the Colorado Legislature, also urged passage of bills to ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines and to extend background checks for gun purchases.

A previous loophole that exempted firearms sales at gun shows from background checks was closed following the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, where two students shot a teacher and 12 students to death before committing suicide.

Columbine stood as the deadliest U.S. public school shooting on record until 20 first-graders and six adults were slain by a gunman in December at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Sandy Hook came five months after 12 people were killed and 58 were wounded by a gunman who opened fire during the midnight screening of a Batman film in the Denver suburb of Aurora.

GOVERNOR OPEN TO DISCUSSION

Flanked by relatives of victims of the Columbine, Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, Morse and House Speaker Mark Ferrandino also called for measures to prevent individuals under protective orders or convicted of domestic violence from possessing guns.

They further urged requiring concealed-carry permit holders to undergo in-person training.

Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, has said he supports universal background checks and legislation to require that involuntary confinements of people with mental illnesses be reported more swiftly to databases used in screening potential gun buyers.

Both those measures were included in the package unveiled on Tuesday.

Beyond that, Hickenlooper "is open to a discussion about magazine limits and other ideas designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people," spokesman Eric Brown said.

Spokesmen for the majority leadership said it remained to be seen how many Democrats in the legislature would embrace the various measures in the package.

"Some will have unanimous support and some not so much," said Dean Toda, a spokesman for the House majority.

Firearms ownership remains a politically touchy issue in Colorado despite its recent history of gun violence.

"These proposals cannot make Coloradans safer," Senate Republican leader Bill Cadman said in a statement criticizing the Democratic leadership. "When only criminals have guns, more citizens will become victims."

(Additional reporting and writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Xavier Briand)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (17)
Evo1 wrote:
More completely idiotic laws made by people who either are completely ignorant of the issue, or are completely dishonest about their motives (or both). This law would be like allowing car owners and manufacturers to be sued because someone steals a car and runs someone down with it. Such a law would serve no purpose but to try to force owners and manufacturers to simply stop owning or making cars, not stop criminals from stealing and killing with them.

Also, singling out so-called “assault weapons” is even more idiotic. According to the US Department of Justice, as well as studies by several similar state agencies, such guns are used in only a small fraction of 1% of homicides in the US. 98% of gun crimes are committed with handguns (which are exempted) and over 3/4 of the remaining 2% are committed with shotguns and bolt-action rifles (also exempted). In other words, according to all the government’s own best data, the only guns to which this law would apply are those that are already the most responsibly owned, and least used in any type of crime, while the types of guns used in over 99% of violent crime are all exempt. So any claim that this is about reducing violence and not about attacking responsible legal gun ownership is an obvious and blatant lie.

Feb 05, 2013 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Evo1 wrote:
More completely idiotic laws made by people who either are completely ignorant of the issue, or are completely dishonest about their motives (or both). This law would be like allowing car owners and manufacturers to be sued because someone steals a car and runs someone down with it. Such a law would serve no purpose but to try to force owners and manufacturers to simply stop owning or making cars, not stop criminals from stealing and killing with them.

Also, singling out so-called “assault weapons” is even more idiotic. According to the US Department of Justice, as well as studies by several similar state agencies, such guns are used in only a small fraction of 1% of homicides in the US. 98% of gun crimes are committed with handguns (which are exempted) and over 3/4 of the remaining 2% are committed with shotguns and bolt-action rifles (also exempted). In other words, according to all the government’s own best data, the only guns to which this law would apply are those that are already the most responsibly owned, and least used in any type of crime, while the types of guns used in over 99% of violent crime are all exempt. So any claim that this is about reducing violence and not about attacking responsible legal gun ownership is an obvious and blatant lie.

Feb 05, 2013 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Evo1 wrote:
More completely idiotic laws made by people who either are completely ignorant of the issue, or are completely dishonest about their motives (or both). This law would be like allowing car owners and manufacturers to be sued because someone steals a car and runs someone down with it. Such a law would serve no purpose but to try to force owners and manufacturers to simply stop owning or making cars, not stop criminals from stealing and killing with them.

Also, singling out so-called “assault weapons” is even more idiotic. According to the US Department of Justice, as well as studies by several similar state agencies, such guns are used in only a small fraction of 1% of homicides in the US. 98% of gun crimes are committed with handguns (which are exempted) and over 3/4 of the remaining 2% are committed with shotguns and bolt-action rifles (also exempted). In other words, according to all the government’s own best data, the only guns to which this law would apply are those that are already the most responsibly owned, and least used in any type of crime, while the types of guns used in over 99% of violent crime are all exempt. So any claim that this is about reducing violence and not about attacking responsible legal gun ownership is an obvious and blatant lie.

Feb 05, 2013 10:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.