[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DIANA DeGETTE

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 20, 2005

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 397, the 
``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.''
  This bill denies for all Americans the right to bring civil suits 
against gun manufacturers and dealers for negligence or gross 
negligence in all but a very limited number of cases.
  As an example of what this means, say a gun store owner left his shop 
unlocked and unattended, even just briefly, with guns available for 
anyone to take. If someone took one of these guns and used it to injure 
or kill, the victim would have no recourse.
  Imagine if I changed my example to one involving a store selling 
other lethal items, like chemicals. Would people not want to see owner 
pay for the victim's injuries? Of course.
  In fact, the victim in my second example would be able to sue. That's 
because the immunity S. 397 grants is unique--no other group has such 
broad and sweeping legal protections, What makes this industry so 
entitled but others not so?
  And, the lawsuits blocked by this bill have in the past, and would in 
the future, force the industry to change its behavior and protect our 
safety (such as in the case of the DC sniper).
  Don't take my word for it. Mr. Robert Ricker, a former gun industry 
lobbyist for almost twenty years, in a sworn statement said the 
following: ``Leaders in the industry have long known that greater 
industry action to prevent illegal transactions is possible and would 
curb the supply of firearms to the illegal market. However, until faced 
with a serious threat of civil liability for past conduct, leaders in 
the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary 
action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market. . 
. .''
  I know its not a popular viewpoint today, but I believe in our 
American judicial system. I believe that generally cases without merit 
are dismissed, cases with merit are properly adjudicated, and sometimes 
parties will settle for their mutual benefit. As such, Congress need 
not step in and make decisions on liability, as in this case, for 
judges, juries, and states across the nation. Let's let our system work 
as intended.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary and unwise piece of 
legislation.

                          ____________________