Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 20, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that manufacturers or sellers of weapons should be liable for injuries, which result from the use of their products in criminal ways, simply because they produce and distribute their products.
The manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms is legal in our Nation. And unless a manufacturer or seller of arms acts in some wrongful or criminal way, holding them liable effectively as insurers--I believe is inappropriate and probably a violator of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
For example, I believe that the lawsuit pending in Federal court between the District of Columbia and Beretta and other gun manufacturers is an example of a claim that would effectively make gun manufacturers insurers for wrongful conduct. I expect the manufacturers to prevail in that case.
However, the bill before us goes beyond this premise, and overreaches in key respects.
First, I oppose the ``look back'' provision in this bill that requires the immediate dismissal of civil liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers that are pending on the date of enactment.
As a matter of principle and as a matter of policy, I do not believe that Congress should pass legislation that interferes with on-going civil lawsuits. This is tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game, and I generally believe this approach is inappropriate.
And second, I am troubled that, as the American Bar Association has pointed out, the legislation would preempt State product liability laws with a new, higher standard that would protect the gun industry even if it failed to implement safety devices that would prevent foreseeable injuries, so long as an injury or death suffered by a victim resulted when the gun was not ``used as intended.''
Today, manufacturers must adopt feasible safety devices that would prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably misused, regardless of whether the uses are ``intended'' by the manufacturer, or whether the product ``fails'' or ``improperly'' functions.
If perfected, I might well have voted for this bill. However, no amendments were allowed by the Republican Majority to answer the concerns I have expressed. Therefore, I will vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov