Aurora Victim’s Parents Face Bankruptcy After Suing Online Ammo Dealers, Vow To Change Colorado Law

[branford]

22. The federal law was passed with significant Democratic support in both Houses of Congress,

including a Yea vote by then Representative Bernie Sanders. This case also involved an analogous Colorado state law.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397

These laws basically reinforce the obvious and well established proposition that manufacturers and dealers of otherwise legal (and highly regulated) products are not legally responsible for the criminal misuse of such products. This no different that protecting GM or Ford from liability if someone drives drunk and kills someone or protecting Craftsman if someone is murdered by one of their hammers. The laws offer no protection if the firearms and related items are actually defective.

The only reason why these laws were actually necessary was that firearm manufacturers and dealers were facing innumerable SLAPP-type frivolous lawsuits that intentionally sought to bankrupt them with legal fees on meritless claims. Then, as now with the Phillipses' lawsuit, the plaintiffs were trying to improperly accomplish in court what they could not do in Congress or state legislatures where such advocacy belongs. As detailed extensively in the relevant decisions, the plaintiffs and their counsel were fully aware that they were using the courts for express political advocacy despite their claims' lack of merit under established tort law, and that an award of legal fees was not only likely, but virtually certain, under separate laws when they inevitably lost. I consider the judgment awarding fees as an expected expense for such advocacy, no different from paying for a TV or radio commercial or donating to a campaign.