Bad law 2 ways: "lawfare" to destroy the firearms industry, and shortening the list of offenses you can be arrested for.
This is a horrible law and will have far-reaching consequences. This is indeed "lawfare" against an industry and gun owners.
I have written in the past about SB23-168 (linked first below). I don't want to harp on things here too much, but this is a horribly written law and I cannot stress that enough.
I won't repeat everything I've said in the past, but I did some reading/listening lately and what I learned made this bill go from bad to worse in my view. I want to highlight that.
Did you know that besides allowing suits by individuals against the gun industry, the law would allow our Anti-Gun Attorney General Phil Weiser to pursue lawsuits? That it would allow him to tag a private firm and let them sue?
Do you think that if he's allowed, he'd flinch? Especially given that thanks to another provision in the law, a lawsuit by anyone becomes a "no-lose" scenario where if the plaintiffs win they get attorney's fees and if they lose they won't have to pay the defendant's court costs?**
See screenshots 1 and 2 from the Independence Institute analysis linked second below.
I also posted a radio interview with Ross Kaminsky and Jon Caldara if you prefer to listen instead of read.
This is gravely concerning and I do not say that lightly. I hope you join me in speaking up against this law. It's next committee hearing will be tomorrow Wednesday the 22nd. If I can help you advocate, please ask.
**p.s. lest you think it just applies to gun manufacturers, you're wrong. Anyone from the delivery driver on down in the chain of supply is liable to be sued under the same conditions I outline above.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-168
https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/IP-1-2023_a.pdf
https://koacolorado.iheart.com/featured/ross-kaminsky/content/2023-03-17-jon-caldara-talks-attack-on-firearms-industry-by-state-legislative-dems/
And the bad ideas just keep coming
**Note that this one is time sensitive. If you want to speak up on this bill, better hurry up because it's up in committee today (Tues 3/21) at 1:30 PM.
Sorry for the late notice, but the bill below just now popped up on my radar.
I would say the bill below is a milder form of bad idea than the bill in the previous post, but it's still wrongheaded.
I took a screenshot of the bill's fiscal note and attached to give you a quick look at what it does. In the interest of fairness, I do want to point out that the bill doesn't make the really bad mistake of allowing a summons in place of arrest for the obvious things like domestic violence and impaired driving, but still, it does limit the discretion of police in terms of arrest vs. summons.
We can have the discussion about unfairness in allowing discretion. As I have written before, when you allow people to decide, there is a chance that racism and other unfairness can creep in. I think that the discussion, however, is better held OUTSIDE the formation of laws.
To give you a hint of what I mean, check out the screenshots that list the various offenses that a police officer could not arrest someone for attached to this post (they're from the Colorado Politics article linked second below).
Do I want someone to risk arrest for a dog that barks loudly? No. Do I want someone who exposes their genitals to someone going? Yes. The thing is, with this law, police have no say in the matter!
You also need to consider how the threat of arrest vs. summons can be used as leverage, leverage that could convince someone to knock off their behavior or to perhaps aid an investigation.
I give it about a day and a half after this is signed for word to be out as to what you can get away with and for people that commit crimes or make themselves a nuisance to change their behavior accordingly.
Bad policy.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1169
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/michael-marshall-act-colorado/article_2673ad88-bc3e-11ed-a78a-0b75a267a9ca.html