Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from Michigan and cosponsored by the Senator from Minnesota. While this amendment appears to be innocuous, it would actually gut the very underlying purpose of this legislation. Let me explain briefly.

First, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit frivolous lawsuits from being brought against manufacturers or sellers of firearms, lawful products, but which result from the criminal or unlawful use of a firearm.

Now, the Senate has many people who have had a lot of experience in the legal profession, and any of us who have had any experience with civil litigation, particularly tort litigation, know that the scope of the discovery, the scope of the litigation is determined by what is pled actually by the person who brings the lawsuit, or the plaintiff.

In my experience, and I am confident that it is generally true, in virtually every civil lawsuit where damages are sought, not only is there a pleading of ordinary negligence--or perhaps strict liability if it is a product or manufacturer--but in addition there is an allegation of gross negligence, which is what this amendment would except from the general prohibition against lawsuits against manufacturers of these lawful products for harm resulting from criminal or unlawful use of a firearm.

It is clear to me that the litigation expense, the harassment of a lawful manufacturer of this product, would not be avoided. In fact, one of the very purposes of this legislation would be undermined if this amendment were agreed to. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as I do.

The fact is, in America today, we are less competitive globally because of a variety of reasons, but it can be summarized this way: our tax policy, our regulatory policy, our lawsuit culture, the cost of health care, just to name four items. But the fact is, because of our litigation culture today in this country, we are less competitive with other countries around the world, and we are seeing the exodus of jobs in America because, simply stated, manufacturers and producers of other lawful goods can do it cheaper and more efficiently elsewhere. That is a threat to our economy and our prosperity that we enjoy in this country.

This is actually true in the case of gun manufacturers. For example, one such manufacturer is located in the small town of Eagle Pass in my home State of Texas. A company by the name of Maverick Arms, Inc., assembles Maverick and Mossberg brand firearms there and is one of a group of companies that is in the fourth generation of family ownership that dates as far back as 1919. Maverick employs approximately 150 skilled workers in Eagle Pass, as well as supplying other work to other vendors.

Maverick and its parent company, Mossberg, cannot withstand the continued onslaught of frivolous litigation against this manufacturer for merely doing what lawful manufacturers do--making a legal product but in this instance one that is misused by a criminal. They know if they get caught up in the litigation, too often emotions run high, reason and rationality is suspended, and these manufacturers become not only sued but actually on occasion held responsible for the acts of criminals.

I certainly respect the distinguished Senator from Michigan, and I was just thinking, of course, his State is

known in particular for manufacturing automobiles. It strikes me that automobiles can be used safely or unsafely, but certainly no one would claim that General Motors or any other manufacturer of an automobile should be held responsible if someone decides to take that automobile that is operating in completely good condition and decides to run over somebody and kill them or cause them physical harm.

For the same reason, firearms can be used both for lawful purposes and safely or they can be misused. For the same reason we would say General Motors or any car manufacturer would not be responsible for the criminal use of an automobile, so should manufacturers of firearms not be held responsible for the criminal acts or misuse of their lawful product.

We know in the end that what this is all about is trying to drive gun manufacturers out of business. Unfortunately, that means American jobs are being threatened. Eventually it means that the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are compromised.

I wish we would focus more of our efforts, as we have in the recent past, on criminals, the people who misuse firearms, the ones who cannot lawfully own or sell firearms, and leave those who are making a lawful product that can be and is used safely day in and day out out of the picture.

Indeed, the effect of this amendment, I submit to my colleagues, is to undermine the effect of the entire bill which would protect these lawful manufacturers from frivolous litigation when their product is misused by a criminal and causes harm to some person. So I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Source