Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act-Motion to Proceed

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT-MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Those of us working in Washington, DC, remember this sniper incident. Not only do I work here but my daughter lives here with my son-in-law and grandson, and they live in one of the suburbs represented by the Senator from Maryland.

I can tell you when these two snipers were moving around the area, ordinary families were living in fear. They had a sniper rifle and they were killing innocent people. Some 13 were killed and 6 were injured. Here are the photos of a few of the victims.

After this terrible sniper incident, we learned there was a gun dealer who could not even account for the gun that was used to kill these innocent people. So the survivors, as well as the victims' families, came forward and said they wanted to hold that gun dealer accountable in court for irresponsible and reckless conduct in selling firearms, in allowing them to get into the hands of these snipers. That is reasonable for the family to do. It is something I support.

But make no mistake, this bill, S. 1805, slams the courthouse door on these victims and their families. The Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, is standing here, pleading with those who bring the bill forward to keep in mind the sniper victims and their families and give them a chance to have their day in court. If the court decides they don't have a right to recovery, so be it. But should we pass a law to say these families do not even have a chance to go after the reckless misconduct of these gun dealers that resulted in the deaths of their loved ones? That is what this bill is all about. The Senator from Maryland has dramatized it in terms that everyone who works in this Capitol will understand.

There was a time when you couldn't go home from work, from this building, for fear of being shot in the street. It happened over and over and over again. Why in the world would the Senate pass a bill to insulate this reckless gun dealer from his civil liability for selling these guns?

I thank the Senator for her leadership.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

I say to the Senator from Idaho who stood up here and said he did not believe the survivors of the DC sniper shooting had a right to go to court and therefore he was going to oppose the Senator's amendment, I guess that is clearly his point of view, but he said just the opposite. He said he reads this law to allow the victims and their families of the DC sniper to go court against the dealer.

If that is his opinion, then he ought to accept the amendment from the Senator from Maryland because that is all she is asking for.

If you do not believe the victims of the DC sniper should have a day in court against the dealer to determine whether or not he is guilty of wrongdoing, then just say it. But if you believe that these sniper victims and their families should have a day in court, for goodness' sake, accept the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. If you do not, it really tells the story of your bill.

If your bill is going to stop the families and victims of the DC snipers from holding a gun dealer guilty for irresponsible, reckless misconduct, frankly, that is another good reason for us to defeat the bill. Let us stand behind the innocent victims of the DC snipers.

Talk about people who hate guns. I do not hate guns but I hate snipers who shoot children and innocent people on the street and I hate the people who sell them guns irresponsibly. I think they ought to be held accountable. That is all the Senator from Maryland is asking.

Mr. DURBIN. Of course I will not because you would not yield when you had the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Fine. I will take my time.

Mr. DURBIN. I will say this to the Senator from Idaho: It is hard for me to imagine, to believe that you believe that a lawsuit brought by that police officer or his family for being shot in the line of duty is a junk lawsuit as you have characterized these over and over again. The Senator from Idaho should join me in the city of Chicago where I have visited officers of that police force shot in the line of duty who are quadriplegic for the rest of their lives because a gang banger shot them in the line of duty. And you tell that officer and his family-the Senator from Idaho should tell that officer and his family-that if they are going to seek redress from a gun dealer who sold those guns to the gang bangers, that that lawsuit for that officer and his family is a junk lawsuit-a junk lawsuit. Please.

How in the world can we in the Senate stand here and pronounce our admiration and respect for the men and women in uniform who protect us every single day, and then when they are stricken in the line of duty, when they are shot defending us, tell them when they want to go against the gun dealers who put these junk guns on the street, these Saturday night specials through straw purchasers and gun traffickers, that that lawsuit brought by that officer and his family is a junk lawsuit that you want to stop with this legislation?

That troubles me. It troubles me because, frankly, I think we understand if we are going to ask anyone in our community to risk their lives every single day for us by wearing that badge and that uniform, we owe them something more than words. We should be standing by them when they, frankly, give their lives and risk their lives for us every single day.

The choice we have with the Corzine amendment is a clear choice: Stand by the police or stand by the gun dealers. The Senator from Idaho says we need to stand by the gun dealers; that this is a jobs bill. We need to stand by the gun manufacturers; this is a jobs bill. What about the men and women in uniform and our law enforcement agencies across America? What about their jobs? Are they worth standing by or standing by their families?

I say to those who are going to oppose the Corzine amendment that if you have a problem in your neighborhood and there is crime in the neighborhood, don't call 9-1-1. No, dial up your local gun dealer because if you dial 9-1-1, you are going to get one of these policemen who just might get hurt and file a junk lawsuit. You had better dial up that gun dealer. Call the gun dealer and ask him to please come out and protect your family.

I cannot imagine that we are going to allow this to occur. The Frist-Craig amendment is meaningless when it says whatever the bill said originally it applies to law enforcement officials. It doesn't do a thing for them.

The Corzine amendment does. It says we are going to stand behind the police. If he is shot in the line of duty, we will stand by him and his family to go after the wrongdoer and the gun dealer who is selling those guns to the gang bangers and street killers, the cop killers on the street.

If you want to vote for the Frist-Craig amendment in this underlying bill, frankly, we are turning our back on those men and women who are risking their lives every single day for us.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for this amendment. We should be offering this amendment not only for law enforcement officials but for firefighters, medical responders, and every single person in America who puts their life on the line for us every single day and risk death by firearms because this underlying bill is saying to them, if you are hurt and you sue, you are filing a junk lawsuit.