OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Date: Oct. 25, 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Guns


PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 25, 2005)

* Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 397, the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.''

* This bill denies for all Americans the right to bring civil suits against gun manufacturers and dealers for negligence or gross negligence in all but a very limited number of cases.

* As an example of what this means, say a gun store owner left his shop unlocked and unattended, even just briefly, with guns available for anyone to take. If someone took one of these guns and used it to injure or kill, the victim would have no recourse.

* Imagine if I changed my example to one involving a store selling other lethal items, like chemicals. Would people not want to see owner pay for the victim's injuries? Of course.

* In fact, the victim in my second example would be able to sue. That's because the immunity S. 397 grants is unique--no other group has such broad and sweeping legal protections, What makes this industry so entitled but others not so?

* And, the lawsuits blocked by this bill have in the past, and would in the future, force the industry to change its behavior and protect our safety (such as in the case of the DC sniper).

* Don't take my word for it. Mr. Robert Ricker, a former gun industry lobbyist for almost twenty years, in a sworn statement said the following: ``Leaders in the industry have long known that greater industry action to prevent illegal transactions is possible and would curb the supply of firearms to the illegal market. However, until faced with a serious threat of civil liability for past conduct, leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market. . . .''

* I know its not a popular viewpoint today, but I believe in our American judicial system. I believe that generally cases without merit are dismissed, cases with merit are properly adjudicated, and sometimes parties will settle for their mutual benefit. As such, Congress need not step in and make decisions on liability, as in this case, for judges, juries, and states across the nation. Let's let our system work as intended.

* I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary and unwise piece of legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov

arrow_upward