Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (Senate - July 29, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will not speak on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, which I support, but on the underlying provision. It is hard for me to accept the fact that we are taking a special interest, we are taking an industry that deals with something that admittedly can be dangerous, and exempting them from liability and giving them greater exemption than just about anybody else.

We talk about special interests. That is exactly what ``special interests'' means. Giving it to one small group because they have influence rather than for a whole larger group who may also deserve it. Even when somebody is grossly negligent, even when an organization does not abide by the rules, they will still get an exemption. How can we say that to people who are injured, perhaps, as a result of that negligence and carelessness?

I want people to remember the terror brought upon ordinary Americans with the Washington snipers. These terrorists acquired their assault rifle to shoot 13 people. They got the rifle at the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. Bull's Eye could not account for the sale. Bull's Eye could not account for 230 of its guns. Yet Bull's Eye would be protected when these families sought recompense by this legislation. Who in America would exempt a gun dealer who repeatedly violated the law and put them above those who had lost loved ones?

That says enough. I know my colleagues are eager to move on so I will not speak for much longer. If Members want to know why the American people get fed up with this body, it is legislation such as this that caters to a small, powerful group.

The right to guns is a good thing. I support the second amendment. But no amendment is absolute. Not the first, not the fourth, not any of them, including the second. There are some here who believe only the second amendment should be exalted above all the others. I disagree.

This is an awful piece of legislation, despite my respect for its sponsor. I urge we defeat it.

To reiterate, I rise in opposition to this bill, which will give a free pass to gun dealers and gun manufacturers, even when their products wreak havoc on innocent people.

With all of the important business before the Senate right now, it is shocking that we would spend our time giving unwarranted and unprecedented immunity to an industry whose products, when allowed into the hands of the wrong people, do incredible harm to innocent Americans. We even put off working on a defense bill to do this favor to the gun lobby.

This bill, will literally endanger people's lives because it eliminates the last check we have, on bad gun dealers--the threat of lawsuits.

This bill will hurt victims of gun violence all across America--the innocent men, women and children who will end up being shot and killed if this bill passes because a gun dealer can't or won't keep track of his guns and there is no check on him.

We remember too well the terror that was brought upon ordinary Americans when the Washington snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, went on their 23-day shooting spree.

These terrorists acquired the assault rifle that they used to shoot 13 people at Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, and Bull's Eye could not account for that sale.

In fact, Bull's Eye couldn't account for over 230 of its guns. This bill would protect gun dealers like Bull's Eye from lawsuits by the families of the sniper victims.

And this wasn't a dealer operating under the radar. In fact, Bull's Eye was inspected by the ATF not once, not twice, not even three, but four times in the 6 years prior to the sniper shootings. And what did those inspections reveal? They revealed that Bull's Eye could not account for over 160 guns missing from its inventory.

One of these guns was used by the DC snipers to kill ten innocent people and injure three others. It was only after people died that ATF did a real investigation and found that it was not 160, but 238 guns that were missing.

But it was still open and doing business.

What recourse did the sniper victims and their families have while they were waiting for the government to act? These victims sued the gun dealer for negligence, and won a $2.5 million settlement.

That won't bring back the innocent people who were killed by the snipers. But it gives these victims what we are all entitled to when someone else's negligence does us harm--our day in court

and the opportunity to achieve justice.

This bill would shield bad dealers like Bull's Eye from justice. It would say to people like the victims of the DC snipers--``I'm sorry but you have no right to your day in court because Congress has made a special exception for bad gun dealers.''

We don't do this for other industries, but due to pressure from the gun lobby we are being asked to carve out a special exception to an industry that makes and sells what are, in the hands of the wrong people, very deadly weapons.

In Philadelphia, a small child found a gun on the street and accidentally shot a 7-year-old boy. That boy's mother was able to recover a settlement from the gun dealer, who negligently sold multiple guns to a gun trafficker. One of those guns ultimately caused her son's death. This bill would deny that mother her day in court.

And it's not just about money. Gun dealers and manufacturers also agree to implement safer practices as a result of these negligence suits. This bill would give bad dealers and manufacturers no incentive to enact these safer practices.

Lawsuits against bad dealers, or dealers who are too lazy to adequately keep track of their inventories, do not affect the right of law-abiding Americans to safely use guns to hunt or collect.

But this bill does wipe away the right of American citizens to have their day in court. This bill destroys that right and slams the courthouse door in the faces of gun crime victims who are trying to make sure that gun dealers are responsible.

We have heard some of my colleagues talking here about the importance of responsibility. Well this bill says that everyone should be responsible--except the gun industry. You get a free pass. The rules that apply to every other industry in America don't apply to you.

Our court system works. And when a frivolous or baseless lawsuit is brought, there are rules to make sure that it doesn't go forward.

We should allow the system to continue to work. It worked for two New Jersey police officers who won a $1 million settlement from a dealer who negligently sold 12 guns to a straw buyer. It worked when the dealer agreed to implement safer sales practices to prevent criminals from getting guns.

That is why I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the amendment being offered by my friend from New Jersey, Senator CORZINE. This sensible amendment will allow law enforcement officers like those two New Jersey police officers to obtain justice when careless sellers allow guns to get into the wrong hands.

So the system needs to work for all Americans--and Congress shouldn't create special rules for special interest groups, especially when the lives of so many people are literally at stake.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/