CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 07, 2016 01:19 PM UTC
37 Comments
The law may or may not be stupid.
But the Phillipses should sue their lawyer for malpractice, because the law is the law.
I wonder if their lawyers explained to them that aspect of the law and what the consequences could be. Did they have any idea they could be held liable under the law for those fees? It's tragic and you're right. If anyone is to bame for the fix they're in it's their lawyers.
That said a lot of Bernie supporters would be reacting very differently if it was another pol involved in this. Can you imagine what we'd be hearing from Zap if it was Bennet the family was demanding an apology from or what mama would be saying if it was HRC?
If Bernie had no idea of the possible repercussions I wouldn't be surprised. He doesn't seem to be a nuts and bolts oriented guy. He seems to want to just swoop in with the big ideas and he's no more saintly than any other pol when it comes to keeping his eye on what will keep him on the right side of the voters in hs district. Nothing wrong with that. Pols have to get elected and keep their seats to get anything done and they're supposed to serve the interests of their constituents. But I get a little tired of the whole Saint Bernie thing.
Uh-uh.
and if Bernie voted for a law making it illegal to sue a toaster maker for making toast, and then someone choked on a piece of toast, and the survivors sued the toaster maker, and Bernie or his supporters said "don't sue the toaster maker, sue the toast maker" would it still be making Bernie a saint?
you know how how this works. Like ability matters. a lot. And HRC has huge, record setting huge, negatives.
not his fault he protested segregated public housing while she was working for Goldwater For President.
ummm…. OK I guess.
Oh dear. Someone besmirched our dear leaders omnipotence. Let's throw the old Goldwater pie in this fight. Never mind that the evil bitch has worked for minorities and the poor in a number of different capacities throughout her life helping them in ways that MADBRO never will. No one can question our dear leaders infallibility. If he says that gun manufacturers can sell their product to anyone without regard to the consequences than that's the way it is. Toasters, guns, Vicodin, fossil fuels. It's all the same. Buyers beware. Manufacturers can do anything they want in the pursuit of profit without repercussions or consequences. That's what our dear leader wishes.
And speaking of Saint Bernard and infallibility, he's supposed to be meeting with Francis I sometime soon. Might there be an endorsement?
Or maybe they’ll just plan an exorcism of HRC; cast out the demons from Goldman Sachs.
Please let's not assume that our modern day saint is being a hypocrite to go after banks and claim that that they should be held responsible for the misuse of their products because we all know that bankers are bad boys who deserve a Bernie beatdown which is also great for getting attention and Populist anger votes even though he is a little squishy on how he is going to carve them up into little pieces but the gun guys are good because who knew that some demented soul would use a high powered military weapon to senselessly kill other human beings. Besides calling for accountability of gun manufacturers isn't a real vote getter if you know what I mean and since Saint Bernie already has the rabid left vote so why risk losing the rabid gun lover vote.
really, guys…? Is that the best you got?
Well, enjoy your little circle jerk…I think I'll go outside and mow the grass….
Beautiful day in the neighborhood Mr. Cox. Go Rockies. What a great Story.
Indeed, Mr. …umm….Defender.
Incidentally. You need not refrain from Bernie bashing on my account. Please, proceed…
While I think Sanders was wrong to support the federal law (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), the ridiculous assessment of legal costs is a homegrown failure.
Ah, I see Hillary's corrupt campaign can enlist Colorado Pols when needed.
Oops, someone pricked the boil.
We have both HRC and Sanders supporters here. My comment is perfectly consistent with what I've been saying all along about Sanders. It's perfectly consistent with this blog's role to post a story of such importance here in Colorado. We are not the Borg. Your problem is that you are but your party has become so chaotic you don't quite know how to be that anymore. You're not getting a consistent signal anymore and you have no capacity for independent thought. You must think it makes our heads hurt the way it does yours.
Or his nose. Oops. I thought you said picked.
While I feel for the Phillips family, they were IMHO misled by their own lawyers (or so desperate for some form of vengeance that they overrode their lawyer's good judgement and the lawyer went along with them). Further, the statute that cost them so much money wasn't passed by Bernie Sanders at all, but by the Colorado State Legislature and the governor at the time.
I think perhaps they need to step back a bit. So do the dead guvs if they can't remember enough of the details to write a cogent analysis of the actual situation.
Thank you, Phoenix. That's the way I remember it,too. It was an RMGO special, wasn't it?
That is, the Federal law that Sanders voted for prohibited suing gun manufacturers. The Colorado law enshrined those ridiculous penalties for even trying.
Does Dudley Brown feel the Bern?
Has RMGO endorsed Sanders by any chance?
Not a chance, Frankly. Bernie's longtime support of closing the gun show loophole, universal background checks, banning assault weapons, and limiting the size of magazines makes it impossible for RMGO, NGRA, NRA, or any other gunhead organization to support him.
My point was that Hillary's insistence on making his 2005 vote for limiting manufacturer liability into a national attack ad will "backfire" (pun intended) on her – it will make Sanders seem much more gun-rights friendly than he actually is, thus persuading low info voters to his side.
This one may have been good for Senator Bernie but it does him no good as presidential candidate Bernie. Not much harm either. Obviously the gun rights crowd will not vote for him just because his stance is a little different than other Dem candidates.They're also far righties. It won't hurt him with his supporters and won't help him with undecideds. Pretty much a wash.
Well here's some info about the federal act:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910
In any case, federal or state, the law is the law and the family lawyers are the ones who should have been clear on it and made it clear. If they did and the family went ahead anyway, then they knew the risk they were taking. If not perhaps suing them would be the way forward for the family.
I still don’t think the Bernie suporters here would take the same attitude towad other pols who voted for the federal legislation.
Cuz politics is hardball.
As you can read in this and our previous posts on this matter, there is both a state and federal statute that apply to the Phillips' suit. Our narrative as written above is correct and we stand by it.
Lonnie and Sandy Phillips had their suit dismissed under the terms of a federal law, supported by Sanders, shielding weapons dealers from liability for harm caused by their products. They were then ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to those same dealers under the terms of a Colorado state law, passed in 2000, requiring plaintiffs to pay the court costs of weapons dealers when a case is dismissed. Their story has provoked sympathy and some national press, though very little interest from local media.
According to the link, the penalty was applied based on Colorado law – and the suit was brought in a Colorado court.
Further, the Federal act (The 2005 "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act") does not explicitly provide for the awarding of legal costs to the sued manufacturer or seller.
Simply put: using Sanders' vote on the PLCAA (which also mandated safe storage or child lock provisioning from sellers and severely limited production of AP bullets) is a badly thought-out political delusion. Your narrative, Pols, is NOT correct. Stand by it as you will, it doesn’t match the facts that you yourselves wrote.
US district court. Order to dismiss. The judge does discuss both CO and federal statutes barring a claim for relief, but I assume the point of going to a federal court was to challenge the federal act.
Right.. So now they should sue the Colorado legislature, right?
their claim is against their lawyers collasally bad advice.
Previous posts referenced the state law passed in 2000, HB00-1208. This one did not. HB1208 was the law that awarded excessive damages to defendant if lawsuits were dismissed, as the Phillips' lawsuit was.
If a brand new Pols reader read only this article, he or she would think that the law Sanders voted for in 2005 was the deciding factor in the Phillips' tragedy.
Also, it's kind of a stretch to label Sanders as "pro-gun" when he has a D- on gun laws from the NRA. Over 30 years in public life, it never went higher than a D, except for 2006 with that one vote shielding gun makers from liability. But whatever, Pols, you're clearly anti-Sanders – On the Big Line, his likelihood to win Colorado has gone DOWN after winning 4 states straight.
So if you can spin the tragedy of the Phillips having to pay $200,000 after losing their daughter to a massacre as essentially Bernie Sanders' fault, you will absolutely do that.
Ironically, Sanders will probably pick up votes from the gunhead community because of this publicity, more than offsetting whatever losses he will have.
Me, I think gun manufacturers should have to supply all guns with smart locks and other safety devices, so that only one licensed adult can fire them. These are measures which Sanders has also supported. Hence the D-. If manufacturers refuse to do this, because it isn't profitable, then we the public should be able to sue them. That's my opinion, and Sanders is "evolving" towards that.
Like Obama, he is not a perfect candidate. No Saint Bernie here.
The post I read above does say "state and federal law." Was that added? Anyway, I think the worst that can be said is this post takes a side in the Democratic presidential primary, and that's going to piss off somebody no matter what. I have to agree with BC that the Guvs wouldn't be getting kicked over this post nearly as much if it wasn't going after Bernie Sanders.
Both of these laws have the same intent, to prevent victims from getting justice. They both affect the Phillips family, and Sanders should never have voted for the federal one. I do believe that Sanders would have voted for the Colorado one too. Does anyone think he would not have in 2000?
Having said that, thanks for acknowledging Bernie isn't perfect. Neither is Hillary for sure.
Ps, Colorado already caucused and HRC has already locked up the nomination.
What an embarrassment of a story.
You know, I started out this primary season delighted to support Bernie on principle, and more than willing to vote for Hillary when it came to it. But using the family like this, for a blue-on-blue attack … You know what, it just stinks. And I'm out of excuses I can make for myself.
I've been voting for Democrats longer than most Bernie supporters have been alive, I think. And I'm telling you right now, I'm not going to cast a vote for Hillary if it comes to it. Her campaign has been deplorable, and this story is only the latest in a long line of straws that have broken this old camel's back.
If this is the future of the Democratic Party, you all can count me out.
Oh, look, a new friend for Moderatus to play with …
An alleged Democratic concern troll. Good luck with that, Robb. Got any bridges you want to try selling us? Pyramid schemes? Snake oil?
Are you serious? Do you even hear yourselves?
It's so far out of the boundaries of your imaginations that an actual Democrat might find the Clinton campaign's antics off-putting, I must be a concern troll? This is precisely what I'm talking about.
Do you think Sanders did so well at the caucuses — that were closed, that were full of, you know, Democrats — because the people who voted for him were happy with this sort of baloney?
I can't believe I'm having to say this. But while I may not be on Pols every day, I've been commenting here for years. And if there's anything in my posting history that suggests Moddy and I are in the same book, much less on the same page, it's news to me.
I am genuinely disappointed here. And I don't think I'm alone.
You do realize that Obama and the Clintons are the only Democrats who have managed to win a national election in the last 40 years, and the only ones who have won re-election since Franklin Roosevelt.
Why do you want to go back to running losing campaigns? Didn't we have our fill of that with McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry?
Find them as off-putting as you want. Anyone who's been reading this blog for years knows I'm not exactly HRC's biggest fan. But, obviously, if she gets the nomination and you refuse to vote for her that, in effect, supports whoever the Rs run.
If she's not a good enough Democrat for you I'm pretty sure any R would be a worse one. I'm pretty sure you'd like most of the policies HRC would support a whole lot better than any of the 21st century GOP wacko policies.
So you're either a concern troll or a fool like those PUMAs who claimed they'd stay home or vote for McCain if HRC wasn't nominated because helping a candidate who opposed their fave on all the issues if their fave didn't get the nod would make so much sense. One or the other. Concern troll. Fool. Take your pick.