Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 20, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This resolution immunizes the gun industry--including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms and ammunitions--from civil liability arising from the criminal and unlawful misuse of their products. Advocates of this bill believe that it is necessary to pass in order to prevent the rise of ``frivolous'' lawsuits against companies that manufacture and distribute firearms. Advocates say, the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of these companies to irresponsibly sell their products without any repercussions for the misuse of their product. I believe there is a delicate balance between the right to bear arms, a right provided by the Constitution, and the need to prevent gun violence. This bill, if passed into law, will unfairly shift the balance. Through the laws vested in the Constitution, every American has been given the responsibility to keep and bear arms, but this resolution will dismantle all progress that has been made toward the fight against crime.

Each year more than 30,000 gun-related deaths occur; a third of these 30,000 deaths are committed with malicious ``intent by customers of the arms industry who exploit their Second Amendment Right. Since 2000, we have witnessed a 9 percent increase in gun-related homicides. In 2003, firearms were used in over 365,000 cases of violent crime. Fifty percent of all the African American youngsters between the ages of 15 and 19, who die, die from gun violence. When guns and ammunitions reach the wrong hands, we must be able to hold accountable the companies that put destructive weapons in the hands of these criminals.

My dissent for this bill focuses around the lack of responsibility required by arms dealers. When the desired intent of a product is to fatally wound an object through legal or illegal means, there will always be the need of a high demand of accountability. For cases of gun violence in which the firearms industry should be held responsible, this resolution does not protect its victims. In past years, State and Federal Courts have found these types of cases to be grounded in such credible legal principles as negligence, product liability, and public nuisance. If this legislation passes, the high demand of accountability and liability required by firearms companies will drastically decrease. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov