[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 29, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E798]]
             THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 29, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As a former 
federal prosecutor and the Attorney General of New Mexico, I have seen 
first hand that crimes committed with guns are among the most heinous, 
and should be prosecuted as quickly and forcefully as possible.
  That is what concerns me most about H.R. 1036. Unfortunately, 
regardless of the criminal actions taken, it provides the gun industry 
with unprecedented immunity against civil liability prosecutions 
arising from such actions. Furthermore, in many cases it exempts 
manufacturers and dealers from product liability and provides 
disincentives to the industry to ensure that their products are safe. 
This legislation radically rewrites well-accepted principles of 
liability law by depriving gun violence victims of their legal rights 
in cases involving industry misconduct and negligence. If this bill is 
enacted, citizen lawsuits will no longer provide the primary mechanism 
to hold the gun industry accountable for its actions.
  The bill only holds the gun industry accountable for physical 
injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design 
or manufacture of the product ``when used as intended.'' Furthermore, 
it only provides a remedy for gun transactions that cause injury if the 
dealer had knowledge prior to the transaction that the firearm would be 
used to commit a violent crime or to traffic drugs. This bill 
diminishes and limits a victim's recourse against intentional and 
unintentional conduct.
  Amazingly, this bill is retroactive. It would provide for the 
dismissal of all pending litigation that falls outside of its limited 
exceptions. A case that is familiar to us all demonstrates the 
ramifications of this bill. The legal counsel for the families of the 
recent sniper shootings in the DC area alleges that a west coast arms 
dealer ``intentionally and willfully'' chose to sell and distribute 
firearms in a grossly negligent manner, ignoring state and federal laws 
designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous persons. 
Furthermore, the families claim that if the dealer had acted 
responsibly in the sale of its guns, the sniper suspects would not have 
been able to obtain the assault rifle they used to carry out their 
shootings. Regardless of the veracity of these allegations, this case 
would be dismissed under the provisions of H.R. 1036 unless the sniper 
suspects clearly indicated to the dealer that they intended to carry 
out their recent shooting spree. I think that goes too far.
  The bottom line is this legislation is bad public policy. This bill 
illuminates the majority's willingness to erode an individual's 
protections from corporate wrongdoing. I oppose passage of this bill 
and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

                          ____________________