Colorado State Senate President John Morse answers questions during a news conference at the Capitol Tuesday, during which he and others unveiled gun-control measures sponsored by majority Democrats. (Brennan Linsley, The Associated Press)
It's hard to figure what the end game is for statehouse Democrats who have proposed legislation that would allow gun manufacturers and sellers to be liable for damage inflicted by assault weapons.
The immediate problem with the idea, pitched by Senate President John Morse, is that it clearly conflicts with existing federal law that does not allow such litigation.
To think that Congress will repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is to engage in fantasy. This Congress will brawl over whether to enact even the least controversial of gun-control measures: universal gun background checks. Yet Morse is counting upon a repeal in tossing the idea out among otherwise rational measures to address gun violence announced Tuesday at the state Capitol.
Morse said Tuesday that once people realize there is a law protecting gun makers and sellers against liability litigation, there would be a " hue and cry to say, 'That's ridiculous, get rid of that.' "
We think that's wishful thinking by the Senate president. We also have to wonder if this was viewed as a more politically palatable substitute for proposing an assault weapons ban in Colorado.
Let's assume that the liability measure, which hasn't yet been introduced, passes the legislature. And let's also assume Congress repeals the federal legislation disallowing liability actions against gun makers and dealers, which is unlikely.
Is the idea, then, to make the sale of these weapons so financially risky that gun makers and sellers wouldn't want to do business in Colorado?
If so, Colorado lawmakers should cut to the chase and do something they actually have the power to do — propose and enact an assault-weapons ban.
Other states and cities, including Denver, have done so. Denver's ban has withstood legal challenges that went to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Of course, given the strength of the gun lobby, that could be politically problematic for some members of Colorado's legislative delegation.
It's amazing how deep-pocketed gun-rights interests can twist a rational and legal proposal to limit the use of certain weapons and accessories into an all-out assault on the Second Amendment.
As the gun control measures move forward in Colorado, we would hope the debate would stick to straight-forward proposals and facts, but perhaps that's wishful thinking as well.