Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and misguided bill that would exempt gun dealers from liability even when they negligently sell weapons to criminals.
It is particularly distressing that we are taking up this bill at this particular time. It was just 3 years ago this month, in October, when the community that I represent right outside here of Washington, DC was terrorized by two snipers, who left 10 people dead and three people injured. The snipers obtained their weapons from a negligent gun dealer in Washington State.
Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by how some people in this institution and other places believe that the name given to a bill will somehow fool the American people as to what the bill actually does. This bill has the title on it Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, what the bill does is to make lawful many negligent actions that today are unlawful. What it actually does is protect those gun dealers who are engaged in wrongful, negligent sales of weapons to criminals. How does it do it? Very simple. It lowers the legal standard of care that gun dealers must today exercise to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.
As a result, the passage of this bill will make it easier, easier, for criminals to get weapons and it will ensure that those gun dealers who negligently, negligently, put guns in the hands of criminals will not be held responsible for their wrongful actions. And it is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, in this body when special interests and the gun industry exert such influence that they are able to convince the Congress to strip innocent victims of crimes of their rights and instead extend protections to those unscrupulous dealers who put guns into the hands of criminals.
Now, proponents of this legislation will tell us that most gun dealers in our Nation are honest and law abiding. I agree. That is true. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco has found that about 1 percent, about 1 percent, of gun dealers are responsible for nearly 60 percent of the guns that are traced to crimes. So if most gun dealers are honorable and responsible citizens, why do they need protection? They do not. The real beneficiaries of this legislation are those small handful of dealers who are negligently putting guns in the hands of criminals. It is protecting the bad apples. It is giving them a green light to go ahead and say I see nothing when they are engaged in sales to wrongdoers.
The proponents of this bill, as we have heard, will tell us it is only intended to stop so-called ``frivolous lawsuits.'' That notion has been soundly rejected by victim advocates across this country, and it is an insult to the victims who seek redress against those dealers who profit from negligently selling to violent predators.
Let us focus for a minute on the victims of gun crimes in our country. Should we not be protecting them? Why do we not have a bill entitled the ``Protection of Gun Violence Victims'' on the floor today? Let us look at some cases. We have talked about the sniper case. I differ strongly with the chairman of the committee, and the bill, as the testimony has made clear, would not have allowed that suit to go forward. I represent that area where so many people lost their lives 3 years ago this month. On many sunny days when the snipers gunned down people who were going about their ordinary business, filling up their gas at gas stations, shopping at grocery stores, cutting their grass, a child who was going to school. Before those snipers were caught, they killed 10 people and wounded three. The snipers have been caught, convicted, and they are behind bars.
The snipers carried out those attacks with a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle. The rifle came from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington, which had an extensive history of firearms violations and had not reported the rifle as missing as required by Federal law because they said they did not know the rifle was missing. According to the ATF, this store and its owner had a long history of firearms sales and records violations.
On January 16, 2003, the families of many of the victims of the sniper attacks who were killed brought a lawsuit against that gun store for their losses and injuries. The victims of that heinous crime spree received a $2.5 million settlement. Let us be clear. If this law had been in effect at that time, those victims and their families would have received nothing. In fact, this bill was being debated on the floor of this House 3 years ago this month when those killings were going on, and this House realized how bad it would look to victimize those people twice, to have them victimized once by the snipers and again by the United States Congress by denying their day in court, and that is why this House decided to withdraw the bill at that time from consideration from the floor of the House. Here we are 3 years later coming back and passing legislation that would have denied them their right. Shame on us.
Let us talk about another case. In New Jersey, June, 2004, two former New Jersey police officers, Ken McGuire and Dave Lemongello, were shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun that had been negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer. Those two officers received a $1 million settlement for the negligence of this dealer. The dealer had sold the gun along with 11 other handguns in a cash sale to a straw buyer, a trafficker, someone who got the guns because he could legally obtain them but then turned around and sold them to a criminal who committed the crimes. If this bill had been in effect then, that case would have been dismissed and justice for those police officers would have been denied. And because of that, many law enforcement officers and organizations have written a letter opposing this bill, a copy, Mr. Speaker, which I will insert in the RECORD.
Should we not be trying to create additional incentives to improve the business practices of these gun dealers, not give them a green light to be negligent? What happened to protecting the victims? This bill does just the opposite. It provides a shield to an industry that should be providing a standard of care at least equal to other industries and businesses. Why do we want to make the gun industry the most protected industry in America?
It is inconceivable that we are here today at the behest of the gun industry to provide immunity that no other industry enjoys and at the expense of the victims of gun violence. This bill will shut the courthouse doors on many victims who have legitimate claims.
In the interest of truth in advertising, the real name of this bill should be the ``Protection of Negligent Gun Dealers Act.''
I urge my colleagues to oppose this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it seems that the charts that my colleague showed listing all the lawsuits actually make the case for how the system is working because, as he knows, many of those cases have been dismissed by the court. The court looked at them; and those cases that were frivolous, it decided to dismiss.
So why are we trying to change the rules? It is because there are some cases that have merit, like the sniper cases and others, that would continue to go through, and under this legislation, they will not. Why change the rules to deny legitimate victims their day in court?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) who has been such a leader on this important issue in protecting the victims of gun violence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to address an issue we have not covered this morning, which deals with the question of terrorists trying to get their hands on guns in this country. We know from our reports and records that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have said to their terrorist network that they can easily obtain weapons in the United States, and we know from a government accountability study from January of this year that between February 3 and June 20 of 2004, 35 known or suspected terrorists, those are people who are on the terrorist watch list, purchased guns in the United States, and that from July 1 through October 31 of last year 12 additional people on the terrorist watch list purchased guns in the United States.
Now, I think many Americans would be surprised to know that you can be on the terrorist watch list and you can go to the airport and try and board an airplane, and because you are on the terrorist watch list, we say no, we want to protect the public, we are not going to let you board this airplane and compromise the safety of other passengers on that plane. But that person can then get in their car at the airport, go to their local gun store and buy as many semiautomatic weapons as that terrorist wants. What is more, that person can walk into that gun store and say, hey, guess what? I am on the terrorist watch list, and I want 12 semiautomatic assault weapons, and under this bill, if we pass it today, we could not hold that gun store owner liable in any way for a wrongful sale.
How do I know that? We offered an amendment in committee. Very simple. Let me read the language of the amendment. We said, we do not want to except from lawsuits and liability a seller who knows that the name of the person appears in the violent gang and terrorist organization file maintained by the Attorney General and the person subsequently used the qualified product, the weapon, in the commission of a crime.
We had a vote in committee on this amendment. Every Republican member of the committee voted no, every Democratic member of the committee voted yes. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I tried to get through the Committee on Rules an amendment so the whole House could consider this proposition. What did the Committee on Rules say? No.
It seems to me outrageous that we would pass a bill that would allow someone to walk into that gun store, the gun store owner knows that person is on the terrorist watch list, they sell the person a gun, the person goes out and murders people and, under this legislation, guess what? You can no longer hold them liable. That is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will include in the RECORD the following letters in opposition to S. 397. Letters from the ABA, letters from two former directors of the ATF, a letter from a number of nationally recognized organizations, and letters from a number of law professors.
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I raised the scenario of a terrorist getting denied access to an airplane because they are on the terrorist watch list going down to a local gun shop and saying, You know, I am on that watch list, can I get some guns? And under this legislation, that individual would be allowed to purchase those guns.
I have read the bill, and that is why I offered the amendment in committee. And what the bill says very clearly under negligent entrustment is essentially if the gun dealer knows or should know that the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury.
Now, we all might say common sense tells us that that would cover a person on the terrorist watch list. But you know what, that is not what the explanation was in committee. In fact, I have the committee transcript here, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) stated that the reason that they did not want to adopt the amendment was not because the bill already covered that scenario. The real reason was they have questions about the reliability of the terrorist watch list and whether or not someone who is on the terrorist watch list is legitimately put there.
Well, here is the question. If the terrorist watch list is good enough to deny someone access to an airplane because that will put the public safety at risk, why is it not good enough to deny someone a firearm who goes down to the local gun store?
We have tried to make it a condition that people who are on the terrorist watch list cannot purchase weapons at gun stores. The Attorney General in testimony before our committee said maybe we should think about that. We have not passed that as a Congress.
And so for the chairman of the committee to say that the gun store owner will be assumed to know that person is a danger, when the United States Congress and the Judiciary Committee have refused to make that decision, it is just plain wrong. The Congress has not gone on record saying that someone on the terrorist watch list should not get a gun. Why should we expect a gun dealer and seller to do that?
So this does open a loophole that would allow exactly the scenario I talked about.
It would close the door on lawsuits by the victims of the snipers in this area. The letters I submitted for the RECORD from law professors and others make it absolutely clear that that is what this does.
Look, we have got a system for bringing lawsuits. We heard from the author of the bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a number of cases that were filed that he said were frivolous. Most of those cases were in fact dismissed from the courts.
The system is working. Frivolous lawsuits were dismissed. But what this legislation would do is to change the rules. It does not have to change the rules to protect the ones that were dismissed; they have been dismissed under the existing rules. So why are we changing them? Because we want to deny people who bring legitimate suits today, people like the families of the sniper victims, people like the officers from New Jersey, the police officers, who I must point out, again, and emphasize obtained settlements in those lawsuits.
We want to close the courthouse door on them. I would just ask a very simple question, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. We have a bill here saying we are going to protect the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which in fact changes the rules to make what is today unlawful, lawful.
Why do we not go about the business of passing legislation to protect the victims of gun violence rather than that small handful of bad-apple gun dealers who wrongfully and negligently help put the guns in the hands of killers in this country and allow them to go on the kind of rampage that leads to the death of so many people.
The killers are in jail. Thank God for that. But why should someone who is known to be negligent, who the ATF found to be negligent and later closed the gun shop, why should that person not be liable for their contribution to the negligence and to the deaths and sufferings that were faced by those families? Let us get about protecting the victims.
Mr. Speaker, the material I previously referred to is as follows:
Source