SB 13-196 a Very Very Bad Bill

jf1acai wrote: Why should the owner of an "assault weapon" that is stolen from a vehicle be liable for all injuries and damages caused by the individual who stole the weapon?

Because they would not be liable under the legislation. It specifically exempts the owner in that instance.

SomethingtheDogSai wrote: Because they would not be liable under the legislation. It specifically exempts the owner in that instance.

Prove it.

The legislation exempts an owner only if the weapon was stolen from a building.

jf1acai wrote:

SomethingtheDogSai wrote: Because they would not be liable under the legislation. It specifically exempts the owner in that instance.

Prove it.

The legislation exempts an owner only if the weapon was stolen from a building.

Thanks for pointing that out, I had thought that it also included theft from a vehicle but you are certainly correct. My guess is that it is considered to be negligent to leave such weapons unsecured in a vehicle. But that is certainly a viable point to discuss.

Thank you.

The point is that it is a very poorly written bill, which incorrectly defines "assault weapons", does not consider/address even common occurrences such as theft from vehicles or other situations which may be totally beyond the control of the weapon owner, yet attempts to assign liability to everyone involved except the individual that pulls the trigger.

It also makes the legal owner liable for all injuries/damages to additional individuals invading a home who have not yet entered the structure at the time the home owner legally fires at the first invader who has entered the home.

In short, it is a "Very Very Bad Bill".

I appreciate your factual response rather than the hysterical hyperbole of other opponents of the measure. I would characterize it as more of a bad bill, not a very very bad bill. It does not ban the transfer of assault firearms as claimed, but between the poor definitions, the vague language and the imposition of liability in the two instances that you cited does make for a poor law. I also think the magazine bill is poorly drafted and would be struck down as unconstitutional for being vague since how can you prove when a magazine was manufactured and purchased, whether it came from out of state, affecting interstate commerce, and a number of issues with the language. The universal background bill, the fee for checks and the campus ban on the other hand will, IMO, pass muster, be voted in and upheld.

Thank you Stds for taking the time to look at the bill a little closer and come to your conclusion.
We agree. Who da thought.

Another problem....

A pump or semi-automatic shotgun is the gun most hunters in Colorado use. It’s a gun state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, says could be banned under a bill that’s already passed the House and Gov. John Hickenlooper says he’ll sign

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/p ... osed-bill/