President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 27, 2015 02:58 PM UTC
7 Comments
So what you're saying is, the law was very clear but they filed their frivolous suit anyway.
Sorry for their loss, but the law is the law.
The only reliable way to challenge a law in court is to come into conflict with it. In this case, though, the law is abnormally punitive.
Name me one other instance where such blanket retribution exists against potential plaintiffs… In all other damage awards that I'm aware of, the judge has to make an actual judgement that such damages are warranted. Only the gun lobby has this kind of protection.
That's about all the gun lobby's got – a flimsy law they rammed through when George W was prez and the GOP helded the house and Senate … they saw their chance and took it.
I don't know how you sleep at night.
I honestly don't know either. It takes a lot of crust to dis Aurora shooting victims.
@Moderatus:
Sure, it's the law, but is the law fair?
Is it right?
Is it just? (We won't get into the 'how' of how the law was passed…)
And, to echo Sandy Phillips' question to Tamron Hall:
Would you – Moderatus – be willing " to pay one penny to the people who helped murder" your child.
A "Yes" or "No" answer to each question is all that's needed – or wanted – from you.
Manufacturers of a product are not liable for criminal misuse of the product.
Is the law fair? Yes. Right? Yes. Just? Yes.
I do pity the victims, but the final question is dishonest. The legal legitimate businesses who they sued did not help murder her daughter. She is misguided and misled by the gun control lobby who goaded her into suing.
Your lead statement is incorrect on two points:
First, this suit was filed against sellers, not manufacturers. And a seller may very well be held liable for negligence in cases like this – unless they're selling guns.
As to manufacturers: a product manufacturer (of anything other than guns) can in fact be held liable for criminal misuse if they make a product that is designed primarily for criminal use, or if they deliberately design a product in such a way as to make it more dangerous. Guns, of course, are supposed to be dangerous – but they don't have to be as dangerous as they are. (See the millions of dollars spent fighting against effective smart gun technology advances…)
Is the law fair? Not if it shields sellers completely from negligence.
Is it right? No other industry is afforded such a high level of protection.
Is it just? Not when it offers the judge no leeway in determining whether a suit is frivolous enough to warrant the payment of attorney fees.
(If you're having trouble following, that would be: No, No, No)