HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Colorado lawmakers want g...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:19 PM

 

Colorado lawmakers want gun owners exposed to civil liability

Source: Reuters

DENVER - 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.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-guns-colorado-idUSBRE91504320130206

40 replies, 6715 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Colorado lawmakers want gun owners exposed to civil liability (Original post)
UnrepentantLiberal Feb 2013 OP
hlthe2b Feb 2013 #1
lsewpershad Feb 2013 #31
tooeyeten Feb 2013 #2
ashling Feb 2013 #9
mwooldri Feb 2013 #12
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #22
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #3
Travis_0004 Feb 2013 #4
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #7
ashling Feb 2013 #10
upaloopa Feb 2013 #26
NickB79 Feb 2013 #30
mountain grammy Feb 2013 #40
libdem4life Feb 2013 #5
Tumbulu Feb 2013 #13
smccarter Feb 2013 #6
upaloopa Feb 2013 #27
Deep13 Feb 2013 #8
Tumbulu Feb 2013 #11
upaloopa Feb 2013 #28
Lordquinton Feb 2013 #35
RiverNoord Feb 2013 #32
robinlynne Feb 2013 #14
SheilaT Feb 2013 #15
cosmicone Feb 2013 #18
Lordquinton Feb 2013 #36
lynne Feb 2013 #16
cosmicone Feb 2013 #17
lynne Feb 2013 #19
cosmicone Feb 2013 #20
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #21
samsingh Feb 2013 #23
libdem4life Feb 2013 #24
Maineman Feb 2013 #25
Maineman Feb 2013 #29
1983law Feb 2013 #33
idwiyo Feb 2013 #34
marions ghost Feb 2013 #37
hack89 Feb 2013 #38
brooklynite Feb 2013 #39

Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:22 PM

1. YES!!! I hope this passes and pushes the rest of the country...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:04 PM

31. Agreed

This may be even more powerful than some of the other measures being considered if the if the penalties are severe .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:28 PM

2. Require insurance coverage

for ownership of assault weapons, and high capacity magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tooeyeten (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:49 PM

9. This would have the added effect of putting the insurance industry in the mix

requiring safety measures as a requirement of insurance in the way Auto Insurers are involved in automobile safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tooeyeten (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:01 AM

12. definitely!

After all we need insurance to legally drive a motor vehicle, so why not liability insurance for gun owners?

I've killed more deer with a Ford Focus than any gun (I don't own one anyway, never will), and the insurance was necessary then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tooeyeten (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:32 AM

22. Nope. Require insurance coverage for each and every gun

owned (just like cars) and each and every box of ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:40 PM

3. Finally! This is what we need!

Tort Reform. That's the way to approach this. Hold the manufacturers liable for money damages for the lives of those lost to these useless weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:41 PM

4. It looks like somebody is not awawe of federal law

There is a law that prevents suits against gun dealers.

Federal law trumps state law.

This suit will be thrown out by the courts in 3. . . . .2. . . . .1. . . ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:02 PM

7. Abortion is also protected, but that doesn't stop states from imposing

all sorts of restrictions. So, Colorado should go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:51 PM

10. That needs to be challenged/changed at the Federal level,

but the move has to start somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:05 PM

26. Simple changed the Federal law 3...2...1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:22 PM

30. You know a hundred or so Republicans that would vote for that?

You wouldn't even get such a proposal past the Senate, much less the GOP-controlled House.

But yeah, otherwise perfectly simple

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:08 PM

40. The state needs to pass the laws in defiance of federal law. Gun laws are traditionally

a state matter, so if this is challenged, there's a good chance the federal law could be struck down. Sue the bastards!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:50 PM

5. It is definitely coming. Average, everyday people are getting an education that we didn't want but

has been forced upon us and there has been and will be a change.

Let's arm the teachers in elementary schools, but bow helplessly to an arcane federal law?

No. The veil has been pierced...maybe not this year, but soon. It's an indefensible argument, getting more shrill and hollow and embarrasing with every LaPierre appearance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:02 AM

13. So well stated

It is clear to me as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:59 PM

6. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/responsible

answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smccarter (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:06 PM

27. Don't make the f...ing gun no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:03 PM

8. Punitive and unnecessary and probably an unconstitutional status punishment.

So the guy doing nothing wrong is reasponible, not the murderer. Strict liability means that as long as damage occurs, regardless of what safeguards exist or how careful the owner was or who might actually be guilty of a criminal offense, the owner is responsible.

So if someone keeps his granddad's in a safe, keeps his house locked, has bars on the windows, and an active alarm system, but someone still manages to crowbar his war in and steal; is he really the one to hold responsible for damage. In other words, should he be held to greater responsibility than the guy who commits the burglary and subsequent murder?

The usual standard for auto accidents or any other kind of injury (workers' comp is a special case) is negligence. Did the person fail to use ordinary, reasonable care to prevent injury? In the case of cars, for instance, that duty of care is defined by specific traffic rules. If someone runs a red light, speeds or rear ends someone, that driver has necessarily violated the duty of care. A similar rule could apply to gun storage. Failure to keep them locked up necessarily constitutes negligence.

I know a lot of you think any gun anywhere comes dunked in guilt that anyone who has one is automatically a monster in need of punishment. Fortunately, this is the real world and not some flaky, liberal purity reeducation camp. Good thing, since I never learned the words to Kumbaya. And no one in Washington is listening to you guys. We'll get universal background checks and maybe magazine restrictions, which will be sensible measure. But they've already given up on a "assault weapon" ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:01 AM

11. Forget it

The gun free for all is over. There has NEVER been any constitutional right to have these weapons liability free and so better move on. Does't matter how , just how long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:10 PM

28. You have the same answer to everything

Won't work punishes the good guys bad guys don't obey the law it's unconstitutional.
"Pick one from column A and two from column B that'll stop that argument."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:46 PM

35. You forgot the false analogy

"Guns are like a car" never gets old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:28 AM

32. I'm sorry, but you're wrong...

about several things, most especially the issue of anyone who 'has one' (a gun) 'is automatically a monster in need of punishment.' No, there is no need for 'punishment,' for merely owning a gun, but I believe firmly that modern firearms exceed the capacity of the human animal to successfully manage the risk of physically possessing devices which are designed only for one purpose - the simple and efficient projection of small metal objects at extremely high speeds which, when they make contact with the human body, cause serious injury or death. That's a modern firearm - easy to use, with the capacity to emit multiple projectiles in rapid succession with very limited necessity to pause to load the device with additional projectiles when capacity is exhausted.

Human beings simply do not, on the whole, possess the capacity to manage the process of physically possessing such devices without profound psychological effects which result, in the aggregate, in the active use of such devices against other human beings. Most gun owners do not shoot other human beings during their lifetimes. However, that's logically similar to the exaggerated, but logically consistent statement that most countries that possess nuclear weapons have never deployed them against other human beings. They are still inherently exceptionally dangerous, and any nation that possesses them undergoes a tremendous change in perspective regarding foreign policy, yielding a tendency to engage in military activities, safe with the knowledge that they have a powerful deterrent against invasion. Modern firearms and nuclear weapons, one wielded by individuals, the other by nations. They both bring about a profound shift in the sense of power of the possessor. That shift is dangerous, and we have not evolved to the extent that we may engage in 'responsible' possession of either. If we had, not one civilian would possess a firearm to begin with, recognizing the tremendous potential for physical harm or death resulting from the mere proximity of such a device.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:59 AM

14. about time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:23 AM

15. I have been saying ever since Sandy Hook that all gun owners should be required

to carry insurance. And for those who postulate the gun owner has done everything right and still the gun is stolen and used in a crime, well that's what this insurance is for. And if you think that you really, really have done everything right and you're somehow an innocent victim of a break-in, I say, either carry the insurance or don't own the gun period.

I am so incredibly sick of hearing the "responsible gun owner" crap, and every single day young children find guns, even pretty pink ones that "responsible" gun owners have and blow away themselves or another child, all I can say is, IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID. IF THERE WEREN'T SO MAY EFFING GUNS AVAILABLE THAN MAYBE SO MANY INNOCENTS WOULDN'T GET KILLED BY GUNS..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:23 AM

18. +1,000,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:47 PM

36. Guns are irresponsible.

they are by nature unsafe, just ask about the fort hood shooting and see where the conversation goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:35 AM

16. Wondering if lawmakers have discussed this with the insurance industry -

- as there are some exclusions and limits to liability insurance coverage that would impact a few of the circumstances being discussed. It may be these circumstances are being discussed only by the public and not actually by lawmakers. Not easy to tell at this point. A few examples -

Damage incurred after theft of an insured item is excluded under liability as the item is no longer under the insureds care, custody or control. Example: Your car is stolen and the thief has an at-fault accident. There is no liability coverage for the accident as the vehicle was stolen. The same liability exclusion would apply to a stolen gun that causes bodily injury or property damage.

General Crime Exclusion: Liability coverage often has a general crime exclusion which excludes bodily injury or property damage done during the commission of a crime.

Insured's and household members cannot collect under liability coverage which would prohibit a policyholder and family from collecting liability damages in the event of self inflicted accidental injury or suicide.

These are general liability exclusions that apply to all policy types - auto, home, business, etc. Certainly there are still situations where liability would apply - such as a gun left out where a neighbors child had access to it and was injured - but some of the circumstances being discussed are historically excluded by liability insurance as they do not meet liability definitions or requirements.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:20 AM

17. You are incorrect.

If a thief steals a car and kills someone with it, the insurance covers the car owner's liability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:53 AM

19. Sorry, but I AM correct -

- after spending 30 years in the insurance industry - including claims work - this is one aspect I'm positive about. I've seen this exclusion in action and worked a claim where a vehicle was taken without the owners permission and was involved in an at-fault accident. The liability portion of the coverage was denied as per the policy provisions.

Physical damage to the vehicle itself was still provided but liability was deemed null as the vehicle was stolen and not in the care, custody and control of the insured. If you have an auto policy, I suggest you read the liability exclusions.

Edit to add: You refer to the "owners liability". That's the key. The owner has NO liability when a vehicle is stolen. That's why the coverage is excluded. And that's why the same would apply in the event a gun was stolen. It also applies to motorcycle or any item stolen that later is used in such a manner as to cause bodily injury or property damage to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:44 AM

20. It varies from state to state n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:29 AM

21. They need to be held CRIMINALLY liable if there is

any negligence and anyone is harmed. Limiting it to civil liability is only ok if no one was harmed in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:37 AM

23. yes, and no possible second amendment overlap

gun lovers can take civil accountability

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:12 PM

24. The gun industry makes obscene profits, while socializing the public cost...$175 billion

That's a lot of mayhem for 80,000,000 gun owners. I resent that my taxes must pay for gun violence. The only way to shift the burden of responsibility, is gun liability insurance.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:59 PM

25. Yes! Gun owners need to actually BE responsible.

There are reportedly 300,000,000 guns in the hands of Americans. (Outrageous!) So, limiting the sale of guns might be useful 200 years from now.

Background checks for all sales, of course, would be a good, but modest improvement.

However, background checks combined with owner responsibility should actually be quite effective. The story we hear is that most gun owners are responsible. Ok, let them BE responsible. The registered owner of a gun should be at least partially responsible for how the gun is used. What if the gun gets stolen? Not an excuse. Don't let it be stolen. Keep it safe, use security cameras, alarms, etc. If you sell a gun, do it properly obtaining a background check. Get it registered with the new owner. Get a bill of sale identifying the new owner. Keep the bill of sale in a safe place.

Anyone who buys a killing machine should be held responsible for how that device is used and where it goes next. Guns are not toys. Gun ownership is serious business. Gun owners MUST be held responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maineman (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:19 PM

29. When a gun owner dies...

When a gun owner dies, his next of kin become responsible for his guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:31 AM

33. I see the goal

 

But the approach, I am sorry, is misguided (I'd say short sighted), violates federal law, and is perhaps unconstitutional for a number of reasons. Been a lawyer too long as I see how this will play out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:12 PM

34. Sounds like a good plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:03 PM

37. Accountability.....+++++

This is the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:23 PM

38. Exempting handguns makes no sense whatsoever

they are just as dangerous as rifles - they certainly kill a lot more people. Looks like political grandstanding to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Reply to this thread