Thank you! Now let's do the other states

Apr 29, 2023 7:21 PM

Chickenmakesmetired

Views

94971

Likes

1680

Dislikes

24

https://coloradosun.com/2023/04/28/colorado-governor-signs-four-gun-bills-into-law-erpo-age-red-flag/

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Keep at it Colorado and you could become a Canadian province !!

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

It's a good start, but a long way from protecting our population now that they have nationally allowed such a proliferation of guns to be distributed EVERYWHERE! How do we collect & eliminate all the guns already in the hands of every criminal & moron? Yes, allow law enforcement to have guns, & hunters, & even responsible adults, who pass gun safety courses, & agree to keep every gun they own in a child-proof gun safe. But still, it would take 100 years to collect & destroy all the illegal guns.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Way to go Polis!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I wish I could say that Boebert is spinning in her grave, but there's always tomorrow.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

But what about muh freedoms? /s

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

it’s about fucking time someone starts it!!

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Western slope is not going to like this (which is a good thing)

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

#allfirearmsrelatedsuitsthroughcolorado

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

brb moving to colorado

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

Yay! But something like...39?...states to go?!?!

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

It is progress and we have to start somewhere, but 3 day waiting period is a joke. We need to make sure we work to restrict firearms further if we are to save lives and hope for federal regulation

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Make gun owners pay insurance

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Watch conservatives bitch about this, completely contradicting the 'state's rights' bullshit they employ in every other social issue.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

One state tighten it and another slacks it

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Colorado proving that you lead from the front.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

You need a password or thumb print to unlock your damn phone WHY is it so much to ask to have it on a tool for killing things?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

A 3-day waiting period is not enough. 30 days minimum. Better than nothing, but not near good enough.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

How about insurance like is mandatory for cars, because you might hurt or kill someone with a car...

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Past fucking time for this. Good for them. Sounds like they care about their people.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Refreshing news

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Meanwhile a trump judge blocked Illinois gun law today

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Not gonna lie. The headline had me worried. But they went the right way with these. Let's get the rest of the country to do the same.

2 years ago | Likes 126 Dislikes 4

Judging by the country's history, I thought it was gonna be about imposing a 4 gun minimum per person.

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

In Canada our gun laws are all mandated at a federal level. I don't understand why it's not like that in the US

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Muh freedumbs!! /s

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The states are almost like a bunch of individual territories hiding in a trench coat called America. Take how independent Quebec likes to act, double it, then apply that to every province and territory.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bobo is gonna lose her shit

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

Bobo is a willful idiot….

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fuck that bitch, she can eat shit and die.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I mean, ya, I stand against everything I've ever heard from her. No redeemable qualities, just pure suck

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I live in Colorado. I am a gun owner. I am in full support of this. When Columbine happened, I was a child. My mother sat me in front of the tv to watch the unfolding horrors. Sounds terrible on paper, but it had a profound impact on me. They’re not toys. And that’s how most people treat them. I hate that I have to have a gun to feel a small amount of safety to protect me and my own in this country…

2 years ago | Likes 111 Dislikes 11

I don’t think “most” gun owners treat them like toys. Maybe a majority of the ammosexuals you see with firearm in public though. Lots of people own guns and don’t ascribe to “gun culture”. Whatever gun culture even is…. At this point it seems like a mechanism for small minded, petty and powerless people to feel powerful enough to get a hard on.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

The waiting period for buying guns is a big one. Both suicides and murders go down when there's a waiting period.

2 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 2

Keyword is "feel". We've seen way to much evidence that more guns doesn't make it safer by a long shot

2 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

Hah. Long shot.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

These simple "common sense" measures can save countless lives, just by slowing down suicide by firearms. Never ceases to amaze me how anyone would oppose this

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Many states have had waiting periods for decades. Research shows that there's no significant effect on overall suicides--people who don't want to wait just kill themselves another way.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If Boebert could read the bills, she’d be very upset

2 years ago | Likes 328 Dislikes 6

She'll be really upset when someone tells her to be upset.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

golf clap

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

What’s great is Lauren can’t do a goddamn thing about it.

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

She can. Exactly what she does about everything. Bitch and moan.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

She is, and they are already suing.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If she could read I don’t think she’d be so fucking stupid

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

She's probably too busy out scouting parks for kids her husband can expose himself in front of to notice the bills being put forward.

2 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 0

I don’t think she can read…

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Good, let's keep it that way.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

She's perpetually upset about something anyway. It's the GOP way.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The ability to sue the gun industry could be huge

2 years ago | Likes 567 Dislikes 10

We’ll have to see how it works with the federal prohibitions, but it’s a huge step forward regardless.

2 years ago | Likes 69 Dislikes 3

Of all the manufacturers that sell products that end up killing people, how is it that these gun company’s have never been sued? Oh yeah…GOP pays their salary…

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

The ability to shut them down sb real.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

i still feel like blaming the tool, and makers of them is missing the point entirely. in what world is it the weapons fault? the inanimate object, which is being used by some random jagoff with an axe to grind. if thats the case, why dont we blame bows for the deaths of all asian soldiers during feudal times instead of the archers themselves? or blame muskets for the revolutionary war? what we *need* is to hold the *users* of said firearms accountable. and proper regulations.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Especially for Colorado. The Aurora area alone has serious issues.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How does this interact with the ability to file civil suits in courts other than the state the infraction occurred? Could violence in other states use Colorado state law to pursue a lawsuit against a manufacturer?

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Not unless the company is based in Colorado, but then it would most likely go federal for diversity jurisdiction

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are they currently shielded from being sued?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They are protected from collateral actions by federal law, not direct liability. The law was passed in 2005 to prevent manufacturers from being bankrupted by collateral claims, whicj became a public effort in the early 2000s

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents gun manufacturers from being held liable if a gun they made is used in a crime.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

2 years ago (deleted May 10, 2023 8:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

I thought most lawsuits focused on their marketing to youth that was at risk such as Uvalde, or at their alleged courtship of illicit trafficking, such as the suits from Buffalo and Mexico. Maybe I only think that because those made the news?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

More than one gun company has been successfully sued for their advertising.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Opiate and tobacco companies would like a word

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

That one is a little odd to me. It’s be like suing Tito’s for a drunk drivers actions. I’m all for holding gun owners accountable like if a kid takes a parents gun they are as much to blame for what happens or a negligent gun store selling to someone they shouldn’t. But the company that made a gun seems a little removed or am I missing something?

2 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 11

It's more like suing the bar that overserved, which is a thing

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Haven't cigarette companies been sued?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We did this to the tobacco industry. We didn’t sue them for selling smokes, we sued them for false marketing, underplaying the health risks, marketing to kids and failing to punish resellers who broke underage selling laws. It worked.

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

It would more or less run contrary to a major legal principle, and open up a ridiculous can of worms.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I disagree, the entire purpose of a gun is to kill

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

car companies should be held liable too

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

You gotta go watch their ads. They specifically Market to unstable 2a loons and market their products as tactical weapons for use on civilians and 'thugs' as a veiled generalization for minorities

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If Tito's entire purpose was to poison and kill other people it would be banned from sale.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You're not missing anything logical. The point isn't actual liability, it's to try and establish a precedent for nuisance suits making it impossible for companies to do business. It's basically the gun equivalent of Texas' abortion bounty hunter law.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

If Tito’s made increasingly strong versions of its drinks and ran ads encouraging irresponsibly use of its product, like driving, it certainly would be sue-able for the actions of its consumers in some cases.

2 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 5

Manufacturing and presumably profiting from a dangerous product should have the consequence of a share in responsibility in how that product is used. This would go a hell of a long ways across all industries in helping to curb corporate irresponsibility across the board.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

It might be viable based on some of the ad campaigns from the gun manufacturers. Some of the company's ads actually market them in an aggressive manner.

2 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 4

Yeah that makes sense. Even as a gun owner though I can’t say I encounter many firearm ad campaigns.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's how they got Remington.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yup. The lawsuit against Bushmaster was due to an ad campaign that had that tagline, "Consider your man card reissued." That said.... I think the best take on it I've seen is Beau of the 5th Column's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbXTDuwSVkk)... And the ad campaigns feed right into that shit!

2 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

Haha and yet a good chunk of that demographic that falls for that shit is so scared that a 2SLGBTQ+ person is/could be a spokes person that they pull a temper tantrum over it……

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I heard a radio ad for a gun store today advertising that they sell all their firearms as 'made in the U.S.A, or just not *made* at all' with an obvious inflection on the second 'made'. Like... were they seriously advertising that they sell ghost guns?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That’s weird. Or are they saying if a gun isn’t made in the US it’s junk? So strange.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I could see either ghost guns or guns produced outside of the US as junk, however, I also thought about transgender individuals. A transgender friend states that he is now a self-made man. Just a thought with all of the current hostility towards an already marginalized community of citizens.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hell if I know, station broadcasts out of KY so that wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Read it further and makes a little more sense. I guess the ability for it to happen may make manufactures be more strict with who they distribute to which is good.

2 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 4

Cheers to you for researching the subject to have an educated opinion. Seems to not happen enough of late.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I try as I would like a reasonable solution and enjoy the conversation. The end goal would be a solution that lets responsible people enjoy something but stops the senseless violence.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I see it as no different than the bar/bartender being legally liable for over serving a patron, and it leads to a death.

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Which is a thing in some states but not all. E.g. WI doesn't have a dram shop law

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Right but the bar and who made the alcohol are 2 very different things. I do agree if the manufacture is feeding into this with ads or distributing to known negligent stores then they should be held accountable. But in most instances they are far removed from the end user and what they do with said product.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bingo.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

By that standard, manufacturers should be shut down immediately. They're not the ones running the background checks, approving the purchases, buying the guns for their crazy ass kids to take across state lines and kill people. The CEO of Colt has no say in an FFL holder selling a gun to a psycho or a lazy gov employee rubber stamping a background check. Those are the people that need to be held accountable.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I agree. However, companies in any industry operate unethically and unethical gun promotion is a little different than soda companies making individual consumers fatties. The fact that firearms are basically the only industry mostly protected from these lawsuits at a federal level should be more concerning. The $73m Sandy Hook settlement showed Remington admitting their marketing of that weapon was basically as a weapon of war for the common man.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I think everyone in the chain needs to be held liable. The kid who does it, the parents, the sellers, the manufacturers.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2