On a day when teachers and supporters of East High School came to the Capitol for a second day, a trio of Democratic-sponsored gun violence bills tied up the state House for hours on Friday.

Friday’s actions also mean a Saturday session. 

Lawmakers are considering Senate Bill 168, which allows victims of gun violence to sue in civil court; SB 170, which expands the list of people who can seek extreme risk protection orders; and, SB 169, which bumps the minimum age of purchasing a firearm from 18 to 21 years old.

Supporters say they would curb gun violence and save lives, while critics call them arbitrary and argue, among other points, that they would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.     

House Republicans tried to slow the debate by filibustering final votes on four bills — and Democrats responded by delaying a vote on three of the four measures until Monday. That said, the final discussion on the first bill, which seeks to prohibit county sheriffs from engaging in certain political activities, went on for more than an hour and resulted in a closer-than-expected 34-30 vote.

The bill is about basic fairness, said Rep. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver, the co-sponsor of SB 168. He said that in 2000, the legislature shut the courtroom doors on victims of gun violence, with a law that granted gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from lawsuits.

That’s not fair, he said.

The most notable example of why the law is needed, Mabrey said, was the lawsuit filed by the parents of a person murdered in the Aurora theater shooting in 2012. The shooter bought ammunition online. The lawsuit claimed the internet business’s practice did not provide reasonable safeguards that would prevent a dangerous person from obtaining weapons.

The family sued that online dealer and lost, and the family was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. That caused the couple to lose their home and they eventually filed bankruptcy.

Those parents, Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, were in the House chamber during Friday’s debate, according to co-sponsor Rep. Jennifer Parenti, D-Erie.

Mabrey said civil litigation is an important tool to get industries to act responsibility, to take steps to prevent negligent use of their product and to improve product safety. But for someone to sue under SB 168, they will have to clear a pretty high hurdle, he said. The legislation will not open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits. In New York, which has an even stricter law, just five lawsuits have been filed, he noted. 

If a plaintiff does not have substantial justification to bring the case, that person could lose and pay attorneys fees, Mabrey added. The burden will fall on the plaintiff to show defendant knowingly violated the law, that harm was foreseeable and that harm occurred. He said it also outlines a code of conduct that the gun industry has to abide by, with a reasonableness standard that should be easy to follow: If someone is doing background checks to keep guns away from criminals, that’s the reasonable control. 

“This is a consumer protection bill,” added Parenti.

Parenti also addressed what she described as misconceptions around the bill — it doesn’t assign automatic liability to the gun industry for an act of violence. Instead, she said, it just lifts the unique protections for the industry. She added it’s difficult to make a claim for legal damages in Colorado, and the bill doesn’t change those standards, nor impose different standards on the industry.

Typically, during lengthy debates, Democrats would largely stay silent, letting Republicans dominate the debate, given that Democrats know they have the votes to pass a bill, regardless of what the other side of the aisle does. 

But that wasn’t the case Friday, when Democrats lined up at the microphone to advocate for the bill for nearly the first hour.

It was also a field day for the lawyers in the House, and a harkening back to law school classes for some.

Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta, won a concession from the sponsors on the issue of liability. He painted a scenario where someone would call a gun dealer to argue against someone acquiring a gun because of a suicide risk. Despite the warning, the gun dealer sells the gun, and it’s later stolen and used in a crime. Under that scenario, the dealer would still be on the hook for liability, Soper argued.

Even OJ Simpson became part of the debate — through a story told by Rep. Rick Taggart, R-Grand Junction.

Taggart, who once served as CEO of Swiss Army, the knife company, was dragged into the Simpson murder case because Simpson was on the board at the time of the murders. Taggart’s products were viewed with suspicion as being the weapon used to kill the victims in the Simpson case. (Simpson was acquitted but later found liable for the deaths).

It took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees before a judge deemed Taggart’s company was not involved, he told the House. The problem for manufacturers is that they don’t have control of the end use of the product, Taggart said.

Mabrey later said he discussed the amendment with Soper and came around to his position, and Soper’s amendment was adopted. 

Republicans are mounting lengthy debate on the bill, each taking an hour or more to make their case for its defeat.

As of press time, SB 168 is still under review in the House, and debate on the two other bills is slated to follow. The House is expected to work on Saturday on the measures.