DENVER (AP) — Mass shootings in America invariably raise questions of culpability. Delayed police response outside an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. A district attorney’s failure to prosecute the alleged Club Q shooter a year before five people were killed at the LGBTQ nightclub.
However, this accusing finger rarely falls on the manufacturer of the weapons used in the massacres.
Lawmakers in Colorado and at least five other states are considering changing that, proposing bills to roll back legal protections for gun manufacturers and dealers that have kept the industry at bay from blame issues.
California, New York, Delaware and New Jersey have passed similar laws in the past three years.
A preliminary version of Colorado’s bill to be introduced Thursday not only repeals the state’s 2000 law — which largely prevents firearms companies from being held liable for violence committed with their products — but also outlines a code of conduct that, in part, addresses how companies design and market firearms.
Colorado joins Hawaii, New Hampshire, Virginia, Washington and Maryland in considering similar bills.
While the firearms industry is still largely shielded from liability under federal law, the Colorado bill would make it easier for victims of gun violence to file civil lawsuits like the one filed in 2015 against Remington, the company that manufactured the rifle used in Sandy of 2012. Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut.
Last year, Remington settled with the families of those killed in the shootings for $73 million after the families accused the company of targeting younger, at-risk men in its video game ads and violent product placement.
However, states that already have the law in place now face legal challenges or threats of lawsuits from national gun rights groups, in part because the federal law passed by Congress in 2005 already allows the gun industry broad legal immunity.
“We might forget how unusual and bizarre it is to provide this disclaimer,” said Ari Freilich, director of state policy for the gun control advocacy group Giffords, which argues that federal law allows states some control over the legal liability of the industry.
This bill “would allow victims of gun violence to have their day in court and demonstrate that the gun industry may not have taken reasonable precautions to avoid harm,” Freilich said.
Mark Oliva, executive director of public affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has filed lawsuits against other states’ laws, said Colorado would be “ripe” for a legal challenge if the bill passes. Oliva argues that if Coors Brewing Company shouldn’t be held accountable for its customers who drink and drive, then why should gun companies be held accountable for what their customers do?
“The intent of this bill is to expose the firearms industry to attorneys’ fees for unwanted lawsuits,” Oliva said. “You have no Second Amendment rights if you can’t afford to purchase a firearm at retail to begin with.”
While the federal law remains intact, sponsors of the Colorado bill say it includes a difference that gives states a degree of power.
The bill includes a provision that companies not market or design a firearm in a way that could “foreseeably” promote illegal conversion, such as promoting a semi-automatic rifle capable of holding a high-capacity magazine, which it is illegal in Colorado. .
Current Colorado law also requires plaintiffs to pay attorneys’ fees if their case against a gun company is dismissed. That requirement bankrupted two parents of a woman killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.
“One of my hopes is that we can give Q Club victims … the ability to at least fully participate in our justice system in Colorado,” said Congresswoman Sonya Jaquez Lewis, a Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors. . “Just as any other victim might do in any other civil case.”
Lewis said the bill would only match other industries, such as pharmaceuticals, that don’t share the gun industry’s legal protections. Sponsors are adamant that this will not only pave the way for gun violence victims, survivors and their families to find legal recourse, but that the threat of civil lawsuits hanging over the industry would force them to stand alone. .
“We need industry players to enforce the laws on their own, and if there is a tort … (that) creates an additional incentive to enforce the laws that are already in place,” Rep. Xavier said. Mabrey, a Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors.
The bill is likely to be rejected by Republicans in the Democratic-majority state of Colorado. Republican Mike Lynch, the minority leader of the Colorado House, said he had not seen a draft of the bill and therefore declined to comment.
Colorado Senate President Steve Fenberg said, “I am pleased to see this legislation introduced and look forward to supporting it when it reaches the Senate floor.”
Gov. Jared Polis did not respond to specific questions from The Associated Press about his position on the bill.
I’m a passionate and motivated journalist with a focus on world news. My experience spans across various media outlets, including Buna Times where I serve as an author. Over the years, I have become well-versed in researching and reporting on global topics, ranging from international politics to current events.