Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Self Defense Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary postpones bill that would hold property owners liable when disarmament leads to harm
Summary
Representative Luck's bill would have made an entity that prohibits arms on its property potentially liable if a person suffered harm while disarmed. After questions about breadth, sovereign immunity and proof standards, the committee declined to move the bill to appropriations and instead postponed it indefinitely.
DENVER — The House Judiciary Committee postponed indefinitely a measure that would have created a cause of action against property owners and public entities that restrict weapons on their premises and where that restriction is alleged to have contributed to a person’s harm.
Representative Luck introduced House Bill 12‑32 as a liability measure: if an entity prevents a person from carrying a weapon for self-defense and that person is later harmed, the sponsor said the entity should bear responsibility for that harm. ‘‘If one is stripped of their ability to defend themselves and they get hurt, then they should be able to be made whole by the entity that stripped them of the right to be able to defend themselves,’’ Luck said.
The proposal drew immediate questions about scope and standards of proof. Multiple committee members asked why the draft would not require a harmed person to show that the prohibition actually would have prevented the harm, and whether ‘‘harm’’ as used in the bill included only physical injury or broader losses. Representative Garcia highlighted a draft provision that would not require proof that a weapon would have prevented the harm, calling that language ‘‘alarming’’ and offering a hypothetical where a minor shove could give rise to a claim.
Members also raised concerns about sovereign immunity and the bill’s breadth: could the bill be read to invalidate many existing statutory prohibitions on weapons in certain locations, or to expose the state and local governments to wide liability? Representative Espinosa asked whether the bill intended to strike every law and local ordinance that restricts weapons; the sponsor said that the bill is intended to apply where a jurisdiction bans effective self-defense and that he would accept amendments to clarify scope and to limit ‘‘harm’’ to physical injury.
Witnesses who supported the bill included Ian Escalante of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, veterans who said they had used concealed-carry permits for self-defense, and residents who argued property owners that label spaces ‘‘gun-free’’ must assume liability when a person is harmed. Opponents and some committee members warned the draft as written risked a flood of lawsuits and could impose strict liability without sufficient limiting language.
The committee first voted on a motion to send the bill to Appropriations; the roll call recorded four yes and seven no. Following that vote a motion to postpone the bill indefinitely was offered and seconded; without recorded objection the committee approved postponement indefinitely.
The bill was not advanced; sponsors said they would work on amendments to narrow definitions and address constitutional and sovereign-immunity questions.
