Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 20, 2005)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 493, I call up the Senate bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others, and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation passed the Senate by more than a two-thirds vote this summer and contains the same legal reform provisions of H.R. 800 sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). The Committee on the Judiciary considered and favorably reported H.R. 800 in May of this year.
Just like H.R. 800 and similar legislation that passed the House by more than a two-thirds majority during the last Congress, S. 397 will stop frivolous and abusive lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition by prohibiting lawsuits resulting from the criminal and unlawful misuse of their products from being filed in Federal and State courts.
It is important to stress at the outset what this legislation does not do. First, the legislation does not preclude lawsuits against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing it will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime.
Second, it does not prevent lawsuits against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.
Third, the bill includes several additional exceptions, including an exception for actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violates any State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.
Finally, the bill contains additional exceptions for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition, and an exception for actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.
Recent trends in abusive litigation have inspired lawsuits against the firearms industry on the theory of liability that would hold it financially responsible for the actions of those who use their products in a criminal or unlawful manner. Such lawsuits threaten to rip tort law from its moorings in personal responsibility and may force firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy.
While some of these lawsuits have been dismissed and some States have acted to address them, the fact remains that these lawsuits continue to be aggressively pursued. The intended consequences of these frivolous lawsuits could not be more clear: the financial ruin of the firearms industry. As one of the personal injury lawyers suing American firearms companies told the Washington Post, ``The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.''
Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process. Various courts have correctly described such suits as ``improper attempts to have the court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.'' As explained by another Federal judge, ``the plaintiff's attorneys simply want to eliminate handguns.''
Personal injury lawyers are seeking to obtain through the courts stringent limits on the sale and distribution of firearms beyond the court's jurisdictional boundaries. A New York appeals court stated recently that ``courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of handguns.''
Law enforcement, military personnel rely on the domestic firearms industry to supply them with reliable and accurate weapons that can best protect them in the line of fire. The best and most reliable guns will not be those designed under the requirements personal injury attorneys seek to impose through firearms lawsuits. Rather, these lawsuits threaten to injure the domestic firearms industry, endanger the jobs of thousands of hard-working Americans, and provide to foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage.
One abusive lawsuit filed in a single county could destroy a national industry and deny citizens nationwide the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. Insofar as these lawsuits have the practical effect of burdening interstate commerce in firearms, Congress has the authority to act under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, by prohibiting abusive lawsuits against the firearms industry, supports core federalism principles articulated by the United States Supreme Court, which has made it clear that ``one State's power to impose burdens on the interstate market ..... is not only subordinate to the Federal power over interstate commerce but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other States ..... ''
Before closing, I think it is important to set the record straight on one item. Some news outlets have claimed that this legislation would have barred a lawsuit involving the D.C. sniper and the gun the sniper obtained after it was stolen from a Washington State gun shop that did not keep track of its inventory and did not realize that the guns were stolen.
Anyone who actually reads this bill will immediately realize that that claim is patently false, and it is important to note that some of the editorial pundits apparently do not believe in reading the bills before they write and publish. Under S. 397 a plaintiff would be permitted to conduct discovery to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding what happened to the firearm while in the possession, custody, and control of the dealer and how it came into the possession of the criminal shooters. A plaintiff would be permitted to have his or her day in court to try to establish whether the dealer knowingly violated or made any false entry in, or failed to make an appropriate entry in, his records, which he is required to keep pursuant to Federal law.
I have here a report of violations filed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regarding the Washington State gun dealer. It contains a record of dozens of violations of Federal law and quoting the following: ``The licensee's,'' that is, the dealer's, ``bound books were examined and compared to the physical inventory. It was initially determined that there were approximately 300 unaccounted for firearms. These initial 300-plus unaccounted for firearms are considered instances of failure to timely record disposition information in the bound record book.''
So under S. 397 a lawsuit against that dealer could go forward, and I include this report in the RECORD at this point.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this commonsense legislation is long overdue. Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty, then exercise its authority under the commerce clause to deny a few State courts the power to bankrupt the national firearms industry and deny all Americans their fundamental constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. I urge the passage of this critical legislation.
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.
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.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the plain language of the bill says that the hypothetical the gentleman from Maryland just talked about falls under the negligent entrustment exemption from the bill, so a lawsuit could proceed. Read the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, a gun by its very nature must be dangerous. So may an automobile or a knife, or a piece of machinery that does not work properly. There are a lot of dangerous things that we as human beings utilize; and if they work properly, they can be utilized for something that is good and something that is lawful.
Tort law, however, rests upon a foundation of individual responsibility, in which the product may not be defined as defective unless there is something wrong with the product, rather than with the product's user.
And what this bill attempts to do is to get tort law back to its original moorings where the manufacturer of the product that is not defective in its nature is not legally liable for the criminal misuse of that product by its user.
That is what the issue is before the House today in consideration of S. 397. Now, S. 397 while preventing frivolous and abusive lawsuits also ensures that bad actors can continue to be sued.
The bill allows the following types of lawsuits to be filed: first, an action against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime or a comparable or identical State felony law;
Second, an action brought against the seller for negligent entrustment or negligence, per se;
Third, actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violates a State or Federal statute applicable to the sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which the relief is sought. And this exception would specifically allow lawsuits against firearms dealers such as the dealer whose firearm ended up in the hands of the D.C. snipers and those who fail to maintain the required inventory lists necessary to ensure they are alerted to any firearms theft;
Fourth, actions for breach of contact or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition, and actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.
This is a carefully crafted bill. It provides immunity for people who have not done anything wrong, even thought their products may be used in a criminal nature; but it does allow lawsuits to proceed against the bad actors.
It ought to be passed. I am sure it will be passed, and finally we can lay this issue to rest after 6 years of debate. I urge the Members to support this legislation, to send it to the President for his signature, and then we can move on.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov