[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23258-23281]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

  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.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                 S. 397

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protection of Lawful 
     Commerce in Arms Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed.
       (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     protects the rights of individuals, including those who are 
     not members of a militia or engaged in military service or 
     training, to keep and bear arms.
       (3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate 
     as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other 
     relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third 
     parties, including criminals.
       (4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use 
     of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily 
     regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal 
     laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National 
     Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
       (5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in 
     interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, 
     manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to 
     the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been 
     shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are 
     not, and should not, be liable for the harm

[[Page 23259]]

     caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm 
     products or ammunition products that function as designed and 
     intended.
       (6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire 
     industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse 
     of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's 
     laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional 
     right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and 
     destabilization of other industries and economic sectors 
     lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the 
     United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on 
     interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
       (7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the 
     Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private 
     interest groups and others are based on theories without 
     foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and 
     jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a 
     bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible 
     sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or 
     petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never 
     contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, 
     or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an 
     expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the 
     rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of 
     the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution.
       (8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the 
     Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest 
     groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to 
     circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate 
     interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and 
     judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers 
     doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles 
     of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the 
     sister States.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or 
     ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the 
     harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of 
     firearm products or ammunition products by others when the 
     product functioned as designed and intended.
       (2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms 
     and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, 
     self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational 
     shooting.
       (3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and 
     immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth 
     Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 
     section 5 of that Amendment.
       (4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose 
     unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
       (5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and 
     importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade 
     associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.
       (6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers 
     doctrine and important principles of federalism, State 
     sovereignty and comity between sister States.
       (7) To exercise congressional power under art. IV, section 
     1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States 
     Constitution.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY 
                   ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

       (a) In General.--A qualified civil liability action may not 
     be brought in any Federal or State court.
       (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil 
     liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which 
     the action was brought or is currently pending.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Engaged in the business.--The term ``engaged in the 
     business'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied 
     to a seller of ammunition, means a person who devotes, time, 
     attention, and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular 
     course of trade or business with the principal objective of 
     livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of 
     ammunition.
       (2) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, with 
     respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in 
     the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or 
     foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as 
     such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, 
     society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including 
     any governmental entity.
       (4) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified product'' 
     means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code), including 
     any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such 
     title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of 
     such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, 
     that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 
     commerce.
       (5) Qualified civil liability action.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``qualified civil liability 
     action'' means a civil action or proceeding or an 
     administrative proceeding brought by any person against a 
     manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade 
     association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or 
     declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or 
     penalties, or other relief'' resulting from the criminal or 
     unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a 
     third party, but shall not include--
       (i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under 
     section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a 
     comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly 
     harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so 
     convicted;
       (ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent 
     entrustment or negligence per se;
       (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a 
     qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal 
     statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, 
     and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which 
     relief is sought, including--

       (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly 
     made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry 
     in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law 
     with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or 
     conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious 
     oral or written statement with respect to any fact material 
     to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a 
     qualified product; or
       (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, 
     abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or 
     otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having 
     reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the 
     qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving 
     a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of 
     section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

       (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in 
     connection with the purchase of the product;
       (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property 
     damage resulting directly from a defect in design or 
     manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a 
     reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the 
     discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that 
     constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be 
     considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, 
     personal injuries or property damage; or
       (vi) and action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney 
     General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 
     or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.
       (B) Negligent entrustment.--As used in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying 
     of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person 
     when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person 
     to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use 
     the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of 
     physical injury to the person or others.
       (C) Rule of construction.--The exceptions enumerated under 
     clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of 
     this Act shall be construed to create a public or private 
     cause of action or remedy.
       (D) Minor child exception.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to limit the right of a person under 17 years of 
     age to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law 
     in a civil action that meets 1 of the requirements under 
     clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
       (6) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a 
     qualified product--
       (A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 
     18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as 
     such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is 
     licensed to engage in business as such an importer under 
     chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;
       (B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, 
     United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a 
     dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed 
     to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code; or
       (C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition 
     (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the 
     wholesale or retail level.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United 
     States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
       (8) Trade association.--The term ``trade association'' 
     means--
       (A) any corporation, unincorporated association, 
     federation, business league, professional or business 
     organization not organized

[[Page 23260]]

     or operated for profit and no part of the net earnings of 
     which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or 
     individual;
       (B) that is an organization described in section 501(c)(6) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 
     under section 501(a) of such Code; and
       (C) 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers 
     of a qualified product.
       (9) Unlawful misuse.--The term ``unlawful misuse'' means 
     conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as 
     it relates to the use of a qualified product.

     SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Child 
     Safety Lock Act of 2005''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
     consumers;
       (2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to 
     or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
     possession of a handgun; and
       (3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to 
     law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including 
     hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or 
     recreational shooting.
       (c) Firearms Safety.--
       (1) Mandatory transfer of secure gun storage or safety 
     device.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or 
     transfer any handgun to any person other than any person 
     licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is 
     provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as 
     defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession 
     by, the United States, a department or agency of the United 
     States, a State, or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off 
     duty);
       ``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a 
     curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     921(a)(13); or
       ``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a 
     secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
     unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
     stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the 
     transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the 
     delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun 
     storage or safety device for the handgun.
       ``(3) Liability for use.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a 
     handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device 
     with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a 
     qualified civil liability action.
       ``(B) Prospective actions.--A qualified civil liability 
     action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
       ``(C) Defined term.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     `qualified civil liability action'--
       ``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a 
     person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting 
     from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a 
     third party, if--

       ``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did 
     not have the permission or authorization of the person having 
     lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access 
     to it; and
       ``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so 
     authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a 
     secure gun storage or safety device; and

       ``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the 
     person having lawful possession and control of the handgun 
     for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.
       (2) Civil penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating To Secure Gun Storage or Safety 
     Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the 
     license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was 
     used to conduct the firearms transfer; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $2,500.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 
     923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
       (3) Liability; evidence.--
       (A) Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to--
       (i) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms 
     licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
       (ii) establish any standard of care.
       (B) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action relating to 
     section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
     this subsection.
       (C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor 
     piercing ammunition, unless--
       ``(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of 
     the United States, any department or agency of the United 
     States, any State, or any department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State;
       ``(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose 
     of exportation; or
       ``(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is 
     for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been 
     authorized by the Attorney General;
       ``(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver 
     armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--
       ``(A) is for the use of the United States, any department 
     or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, 
     agency, or political subdivision of a State;
       ``(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or
       ``(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and 
     has been authorized by the Attorney General;''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence 
     is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other 
     provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to 
     any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a 
     crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for 
     an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or 
     dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be 
     prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries 
     armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such 
     crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in 
     addition to the punishment provided for such crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this 
     section--
       ``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 
     than 15 years; and
       ``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--
       ``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 
     1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and
       ``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in 
     section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.''.
       (c) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study to 
     determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of 
     projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
       (2) Issues to be studied.--The study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) variations in performance that are related to the 
     length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from 
     which the projectile is fired; and
       (B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report containing the results of the study conducted under 
     this subsection to--
       (A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate; and
       (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
493, the gentleman from Wisconsin

[[Page 23261]]

(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 397, the bill 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  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.

                              {time}  1030

  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

                          Report of Violations

       Name and Address of Proprietor: Borgelt, Brian & Carr, 
     Charles N, Bulls Eye Shooters Supply, 114 Puyallup Ave., 
     Tacoma, WA 98421.
       License/Permit Registry Number (if any): 991053013E38708.
       County (F&E only): Pierce.
       Expiration Date (if any): 5/12/2003.
       Date(s) or Period of Inspection: 10/25/2002 through 11/02/
     2002.


                              instructions

       Please write firmly with a ball point pen when completing 
     this form. AFT officers will prepare this form in 
     quadruplicate. The original copy and the suspense copy (where 
     required) will be given to the proprietor or a responsible 
     person representative. The remaining copies will be submitted 
     with the completed inspection report. Supervisors will detach 
     one copy from the completed report for their files. Where 
     corrective action

[[Page 23262]]

     cannot be taken during inspection, proprietors will submit 
     the suspense copy to the Area Supervisor as soon as the 
     required corrections have been made.


                           inspection results

       An examination of your premises, records and operations has 
     disclosed the following violations which have been explained 
     to you:
       Reference Number: 1.
       Nature of Violation: 27 CFR section 178.124(a). Failure to 
     maintain ATF F4473s recording firearm transfers to non-
     licensees.
       Information obtained from the Washington Department of 
     Licensing indicates 25 handgun transfers to nonlicensed 
     individuals for which you had no completed ATF F4473s. 
     Additionally, 5 firearms transfers to nonlicensed individuals 
     were located in your computer sales records for which you had 
     no ATF Form 4473s.
       Citation: 27 CFR 178.
       Date Planned Correction:
       Corrective Action: The licensee shall endeavor to locate 
     the required disposition records, such as ATF F4473s, in 
     order to show evidence that a proper transfer occurred.
       Reference Number: 2.
       Nature of Violation: 27 CFR section 178.124(b). Failure to 
     keep ATF F4473s in alphabetical, chronological, or numerical 
     order.
       The inspection uncovered an area behind the store register 
     where ATF F4473s were kept. The area comprised of one lateral 
     file cabinet drawer and a stack of forms. There were 1257 
     unfiled ATF F4473s. Filing by stock # is not an acceptable 
     method of filing ATF F4473s.
       Citation: 27 CFR 178.
       Date Planned Correction:
       Corrective Action: The licensee shall immediately file ATF 
     F4473s that were found unfiled during the inspection, 
     including any future completed ATF F4473s.
       Reference Number: 3
       Nature Of Violation: 27 CFR section 178.124(c)(3)(iii). 
     Failure to properly record on ATF F 4473 the date on which 
     the licensee contacted the NICS, response provided by the 
     system, and/or any identification number provided by the 
     system.
       There were 14 ATF F 4473s that did not record this 
     information.
       Citation: 27 CFR 178.
       Date Planned Correction:
       Corrective Action: The licensee shall ensure that the 
     complete background check information is properly entered in 
     the designated area on the ATF F 4473.
       Reference Number: 4
       Nature Of Violation: 27 CFR 178.125(e). Failure to record 
     dispositions made in the bound books.
       The licensee'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+ unaccounted for firearms are considered 
     instances of failure to timely record disposition information 
     in the bound record book.
       Some ways of locating proper disposition of these missing 
     firearms included: 70 ATF Forms 4473 filed that did not get 
     properly entered as bound book dispositions; 25 handgun 
     transactions determined through the State of Washington Dept. 
     of Licensing with no bound book entries; at least 10 
     dispositions to other licensees unrecorded; and at least 6 
     dispositions to nonlicensees located in computer sales 
     records that have no proper disposition.
       Even after using various sources, 78 firearms remain 
     missing at the close of this inspection with no idea of where 
     they went. List provided to licensee.
       Citation: 27 CFR 178.
       Date Planned Correction:
       Corrective Action: The licensee shall research and resolve 
     all unaccounted open dispositions, and properly record the 70 
     ATF F 4473 dispositions into the bound books.
       See attached list of 78 firearms unaccounted for and report 
     them on an ATF F 3310.11, Licensee Theft/Loss Report.
       See list of firearms that no ATF F 4473s have been located 
     on but other records of transfer have been: such as 25 
     firearms identified by the Washington Department of Licensing 
     and computer records indicating a sale but no other 
     information in regards to the transfer.
       In addition, the licensee will annotate the bound book 
     disposition entries with date, name, and address and note 
     that no ATF F 4473 exists.
       Report Bushmaster rifle, model PCWA3X, Serial number 
     L284320 on an ATF F F3310.11, Licensee Theft/Loss Report, and 
     make note in the bound book.
       I Have Received a Copy of This Report of Violations 
     (Proprietor's signature and title):
       Date:
       Signature and Title of Inspection Officer: Sandra Y. 
     Sherlock, ATF Inspector.
       Date: 11/04/2002


                       proprietor's certification

       Note: Proprietors must notify the ATF official below when 
     corrective actions required as a result of this inspection 
     have been completed. Failure to notify ATF may subject 
     proprietors to a recall inspection or to other administrative 
     action.
       Mail or Delivery to (Address): Area Supervisor, Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 915 2nd Avenue, Room 790, 
     Seattle, WA 98174.


                             certification

       I certify that the corrective actions required as a result 
     of this inspection have been completed.
       Signature and Title of Proprietor:
       Other Remarks

  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.
  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

[[Page 23263]]

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.

                                                 October 19, 2005.
     Re: Law Enforcement Opposition to S. 397.

     U.S. Congress,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: As active and retired law enforcement 
     officers, we are writing to urge your strong opposition to 
     any legislation granting the gun industry special legal 
     immunity. S. 397 would strip away the legal rights of gun 
     violence victims, including law enforcement officers and 
     their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun 
     dealers and manufacturers.
       The impact of this bill on the law enforcement community is 
     well illustrated by the lawsuit brought by former Orange, New 
     Jersey police officers Ken McGuire and David Lemongello. On 
     January 12, 2001, McGuire and Lemongello were shot in the 
     line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West 
     Virginia dealer. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 
     other handguns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun 
     trafficker. In June 2004, the officers obtained a $1 million 
     settlement from the dealer. The dealer, as well as two other 
     area pawnshops, also have implemented safer practices to 
     prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of 
     ending large-volume sales of handguns. These reforms go 
     beyond the requirements of current law and are not imposed by 
     any manufacturers or distributors.
       If immunity for the gun industry had been enacted, the 
     officers' case would have been thrown out of court and 
     justice would have been denied. Police officers like Ken 
     McGuire and Dave Lemongello put their lives on the line every 
     day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their 
     service, legislation granting immunity to the gun industry 
     would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens 
     to prove their case in a court of law. We stand with officers 
     McGuire and Lemongello in urging you to oppose such 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
       International Brotherhood of Police Officers (AFL-CIO 
     Police union).
       Major Cities Chiefs Association (Represents our nation's 
     largest police departments).
       National Black Police Association (Nationwide organization 
     with more than 35,000 members).
       Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association 
     (Serving command level staff and federal agents).
       National Latino Peace Officers Association.
       The Police Foundation (A private, nonprofit research 
     institution).
       Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.
       Rhode Island State Association of Chiefs of Police.
       Maine Chiefs of Police Association.
       Departments listed for identification purposes only: 
     Sergeant Moises Agosto, Pompton Lakes Police Dept. (NJ); 
     Sheriff Drew Alexander, Summit County Sheriff's Office (OH); 
     Sheriff Thomas L. Altiere, Trumbull County Sheriff's Office 
     (OH); Director Anthony F. Ambrose III, Newark Police Dept. 
     (NJ); Chief Jon J. Arcaro, Conneaut Police Dept. (OH); 
     Officer Robert C. Arnold, Rutherford Police Dept. (NJ); Chief 
     Ron Atstupenas, Blackstone Police Dept. (MA); Sheriff Kevin 
     A. Beck, Williams County Sheriff's Office (OH); Detective 
     Sean Burke, Lawrence Police Dept. (MA); Chief William 
     Bratton, Los Angeles Police Dept. (CA); Special Agent (Ret) 
     Ronald J. Brogan, Drug Enforcement Agency; and Chief Thomas 
     V. Brownell, Amsterdam Police Dept. (NY).
       Chief (Ret) John H. Cease, Wilmington Police Dept. (NC); 
     Chief Michael Chitwood, Portland Police Dept. (ME); Chief 
     William Citty, Oklahoma Police Dept. (OK); Chief Kenneth V. 
     Collins, Maplewood Police Dept. (MN); Chief Daniel G. 
     Davidson, New Franklin Police Dept. (OH); Asst. Director Jim 
     Deal, US Dept. Homeland Security, Reno/Lake Tahoe Airport 
     (NV); Chief Gregory A. Duber, Bedford Police Dept. (OH); 
     Captain George Egbert, Rutherford Police Dept. (NJ); Sterling 
     Epps, President, Association of Former Customs Agents, 
     Northwest Chapter (WA); Chief Dean Esserman, Providence 
     Police Dept. (RI); and Captain Mark Folsom, Kansas City 
     Police Dept. (MO).
       Chief Charles J. Glorioso, Trinidad Police Dept. (CO); 
     Superintendent Jerry G. Gregory (ret), Radnor Township Police 
     Dept. (PA); Chief Jack F. Harris, Phoenix Police Dept. (AZ); 
     Chief (Ret.) Thomas K. Hayselden, Shawnee Police Dept. (KS); 
     Terry G. Hillard, Retired Superintendent, Chicago Police 
     Dept. (IL); Steven Higgins, Director (Ret.) ATF; Chief Ken 
     James, Emeryville Police Dept. (CA); Chief Calvin Johnson, 
     Dumfries Police Dept. (VA); Chief Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle 
     Police Dept. (WA); Deputy Chief Jeffrey A. Kumorek, Gary 
     Police Dept. (IN); Detective John Kotnour, Overland Park 
     Police Dept. (KS); Detective Curt Lavarello, Sarasota County 
     Sheriffs Office (FL); Chief Michael T. Lazor, Willowick 
     Police Dept. (OH); Sheriff Simon L. Leis, Jr., Hamilton 
     County Sheriffs Dept. (OH); and Sheriff Ralph Lopez, Bexar 
     County Sheriff (TX).
       Chief Cory Lyman, Ketchum Police Dept. (ID); Chief David A. 
     Maine, Euclid Police Dept. (OH); Chief J. Thomas Manger, 
     Montgomery County Police Dept. (MD); Chief Burnham E. 
     Matthews, Alameda Police Dept. (CA); Chief Michael T. 
     Matulavich, Akron Police Dept. (OH); Chief Randall C. McCoy, 
     Ravenna Police Dept. (OH); Sergeant Michael McGuire, Essex 
     County Sheriff's Dept. (NJ); Chief William P. McManus, 
     Minneapolis Police Dept. (MN); Chief Roy Meisner, Berkley 
     Police Dept. (CA); Sheriff Al Myers; Delaware County 
     Sheriff's Office (OH); Chief Albert Najera, Sacramento Police 
     Dept. (CA); Chief Mark S. Paresi, North Las Vegas Police 
     Dept. (NV); Sheriff Charles C. Plummer, Alameda County 
     Sheriffs Department (CA); Chief Edward Reines, Yavapat-
     Prescott Tribal Police Dept. (AZ); Chief Cel Rivera, Lorain 
     Police Dept. (OH).
       Officer Kevin J. Scanell, Rutherford Police Dept. (NJ); 
     Robert M. Schwartz, Executive Director, Maine Police Dept. 
     (ME); Chief

[[Page 23264]]

     Ronald C. Sloan, Arvada Police Dept. (CO); Chief William 
     Taylor, Rice University Police Dept. (TX); Asst. Chief Lee 
     Roy Villareal, Bexar County Sheriffs Dept. (TX); Chief (Ret) 
     Joseph J. Vince, Jr., Crime Gun Analysis Branch, ATF (VA); 
     Chief Garnett F. Watson, Jr., Gary Police Dept. (IN); and 
     Hubert Williams, President, The Police Foundation (DC).

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, my home State of Texas is well known for the number of 
residents who enjoy hunting and value their right to own a gun. Today 
firearms are found in half of all Texas households. A State law similar 
to S. 397 which protects the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits, in 
fact, is already in effect.
  Texans, like most Americans, use guns for recreation, hunting, and 
personal protection. Unfortunately, there are some people who want to 
make gun manufacturers liable for what other others do with their 
firearms.
  Our courts are already overloaded with frivolous lawsuits designed to 
topple industries that manufacture products a few individuals in our 
society have decided are not safe or appropriate for Americans to have.

                              {time}  1045

  It is the typical liberal mindset. They know better than other people 
what is best for them.
  If this bill does not pass, Texans and other Americans will be less 
able to protect themselves from burglars, rapists, and murderers.
  The Department of Justice estimates that 1.5 million Americans every 
year defend themselves using a firearm.
  The Constitution protects all Americans' right to bear arms. The 
second amendment states, ``The right of the people to keep and bear 
arms shall not be infringed.''
  Mr. Speaker, to allow frivolous lawsuits to constrain the right of 
Americans to lawfully use guns is both irresponsible and 
unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really wish that today we 
could exercise our conscience and vote without the interference of the 
National Rifle Association.
  I do believe in the second amendment, the Bill of Rights, that 
indicates that you are allowed to bear arms; but this legislation has 
nothing to do with the first or the second amendments, freedom of 
expression or the right to bear arms.
  More than 10 years ago, as a member of the Houston City Council, I 
passed the first gun safety legislation that held parents responsible 
for guns in their homes, that children were then able to take and cause 
a tragedy. I remember the physician of the Texas Medical Center, Texas 
Children's Hospital Emergency Room, coming and testifying. I remember a 
parent coming and holding a very limp child, a paraplegic. They stood 
before us and they said this is the result of a shooting by a gun by a 
child who got the gun because of an irresponsible parent. That has not 
stopped the State of Texas and hunters from going to hunt. In fact, it 
has been noted that it saved lives and saved dollars.
  Here we now have legislation with a blocked rule that suggests that 
no one can sue, no one can bring a suit of liability against gun 
manufacturers, and we are now suggesting that this is embedded in the 
likes and the hearts of the second amendment.
  Is it the second amendment that says to a Philadelphia mother who won 
a settlement of only $850,000 from a gun dealer who negligently sold 
multiple guns to a gun trafficker, a child found one of the guns on a 
street in Philadelphia and accidently shot the mother's 7-year-old son, 
is there some reason, Mr. Speaker, we should not have these kinds of 
lawsuits? Is there some reason, Mr. Speaker, that this now putting 
forward only a negligence per se exception will, in fact, disallow 
States like Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North 
Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, the citizens 
in those particular States cannot sue at all because they cannot meet 
the standard because there is no such standard as negligence per se?
  It is unfortunate that the amendments that we were prepared to offer 
were not accepted; and as presently written, H.R. 800 makes individuals 
who sell machine guns, semiautomatic weapons, and large capacity 
ammunition feeding devices immune from that lawsuit, the same kind of 
bill that we have here before us.
  In my own State of Texas, a San Antonio police officer named Hector 
Garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence 
call. His assailant was armed with a MAC-10 semiautomatic pistol and 
AK-47 assault rifle. The shooter also murdered his wife and shot his 
uncle in the leg. Police Chief Al Phillips said that with the fire 
power the shooter possessed, the incident might have turned into a 
bloodbath and he could have killed multiple officers.
  This is wrong-headed and misdirected. It is time now for us to vote 
this legislation down. What a shame for the NRA to buy this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, S. 397, the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, just as I did with my colleagues in the 
case of H.R. 800 in the Judiciary Committee and H.R. 1036 during the 
108th Congress. Just as in the case of the malignant Bankruptcy 
legislation, S. 256, that finessed itself to the House floor for 
consideration and then to passage into law, H.R. 1036 passed in 
Committee body last Congress without having given many members the 
opportunity to have very substantive amendments considered--shielded by 
``parliamentary inquiry.''
  So too did Members have very important proposals to improve this very 
troubled piece of legislation. S. 397, like its predecessor and House 
companion in the 108th Congress, seeks to shield irresponsible gun 
manufacturers, vendors, dealers, distributors, and importers from 
liability under the guise of protection from ``frivolous lawsuits.''
  As the Democrats of this Committee stated quite eloquently in its 
``Dissenting Views'' (108-59), courts around the country have 
recognized that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by 
this bill are grounded in well-accepted legal principles, including 
negligence, products liability, and public nuisance. These courts have 
held that those who make and sell guns--like all others in society--are 
obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their 
product, and that they may be liable for the foreseeable injurious 
consequences of their failure to do so even if those foreseeable 
consequences include unlawful conduct by third parties. This bill, if 
enacted, would nullify these decisions, rewriting and subverting the 
common law of those States, and then, only with respect to a particular 
industry.
  In the past iteration of this legislation, I offered an amendment 
that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit brought by a 
plaintiff who was harmed as the result of an unlawful transfer of a 
machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large capacity 
ammunition feeding device.
  The U.S. Code, in Section 922 of Title 18, makes it unlawful for a 
person from transfer or possess a machine gun, semi-automatic assault 
weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device.
  In addition, before the Committee on Rules earlier this week, I 
joined my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren in offering an 
amendment captioned ``Lofgre_044,'' that proposes an additional 
exception to the definition of ``qualified civil liability action'' for 
law enforcement officers acting in that capacity. This legislation 
creates very overbroad prohibitions for civil lawsuits against 
manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms, and 
this amendment seeks to protect one of many classes of parties that 
might be aggrieved as a result of firearm use.
  While I do sit on the Committee on Homeland Security, one does not 
have to sit on this body to know that our first responders need and 
deserve protection from unintended situations. These men and women sit 
at the front line and are the first to act when our Nation is 
threatened. The de minimis effort that we as legislators can give is to 
protect legitimate claims filed by them in connection with the use of 
firearms.

[[Page 23265]]

  The amendment did not say that gun dealers should be liable simply 
because they sold a gun that was used in a crime, nor does it say that 
the families of all 297 officers shot to death between 1997 and 2001 
should be able to recover. It simply stated that when a gun dealer 
sells 12 or 50 or 100 guns to a person who is clearly going to turn 
around and sell those guns on the street, that dealer should be held 
accountable. Now, the proponents of this bill may argue that the 
negligence per se exception protects police officers because it allows 
suits against dealers who violate other statutes, like the Brady Act. 
But that is simply not true. It would not have protected Mr. 
Lemongello, who brought his suit in a State that does not recognize the 
doctrine of negligence per se. I would also point out that this bill 
steps all over States' rights. As we've seen, with the Schiavo case and 
other tort reform efforts, the leadership of the House is all too eager 
to ignore principles of federalism when it suits their ideological 
needs. I believe that this bill is just another example of that 
principle.
  More than 30,000 gun deaths occur each year, so the almost blanket 
immunization from suit proposed in this legislation represents nothing 
more than an unwarranted and unjust special interest giveaway to the 
powerful gun lobby and a shameful attack on the legal rights of 
countless innocent victims of gun violence. Never before has a class of 
persons harmed by the dangerous conduct of others been wholly deprived 
of the right to legal recourse.
  The Lofgren-Jackson Lee amendment would have protected the right to 
sue for members of the law enforcement community along with their 
spouses or next of kin in the event of their wrongful death. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.
  As presently written, H.R. 800 makes those individuals who sell 
machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, and large capacity ammunition 
feeding devices immune from suit. It makes no sense that the sellers of 
weapons that have been banned by Congress can avoid civil liability 
when the guns they sell are used in crimes.
  Congress has enacted this ban on machine guns, semi-automatic assault 
weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for an obvious 
reason--these assault weapons are dangerous.
  The deadly characteristics of semi-automatic weapons and assault 
rifles was tragically illustrated in my home state of Texas. A San 
Antonio police officer named Hector Garza was brutally murdered when he 
responded to a family violence call. His assailant was armed with a 
Mac-10 semi-automatic pistol and an AK-47 assault rifle. The shooter 
also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg. Police Chief Al 
Phillipus said that with the firepower the shooter possessed the 
incident ``might have turned into a bloodbath'' and he ``could have 
killed multiple officers.''
  I will offer this amendment because the exceptions to the general ban 
on lawsuits against gun manufacturers and merchants is too narrow. One 
such narrow exception allows the victims of gun violence to sue a gun 
seller only if the gun purchaser is subsequently convicted of the gun-
related crime.
  This exception is insulting to the victims of gun violence. It 
prioritizes the rights of negligent gun sellers and criminals before 
the rights of the victims of gun violence.
  H.R. 800 should be amended to allow the victims of gun violence to 
seek civil damages when there are allegations of wrongdoing. Under this 
amendment, the victims of gun violence will not have to wait for a 
criminal conviction in order to seek justice.
  To make those individuals who sell Congressionally banned machine 
guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition 
feeding devices liable for their negligent acts. I also offer this 
amendment so that the victims of gun violence can seek civil damages 
prior to the conviction of the gun purchaser.
  In addition, I will offer an amendment that will exempt from the 
scope of the bill those lawsuits involving injury or death to minors 
under the age of 16.
  As presently written, S. 397 prohibits all civil lawsuits against gun 
manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and trade associations for 
damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful gun use by the injured 
person or a third party.
  There are a few limited exceptions to the overall ban. However, none 
of the exceptions in the bill protects the rights of minors, or the 
parents of minors, to sue for civil damages when a minor is injured or 
killed by a gun that is negligently or recklessly manufactured or 
distributed.
  As it is presently written, a gun merchant could negligently or 
recklessly sell a gun to a criminal. That gun could then be used to 
seriously injure or kill a minor. Under S. 397, the negligent gun 
seller would be immune from any civil liability.
  It is absurd to deny the families of children killed or injured by 
the negligence or recklessness of gun distributors an opportunity to 
sue. At the very least, the victims of gun violence and their families 
deserve an opportunity to have their claims heard by a judge and jury.
  It is certainly foreseeable that some guns will accidentally fall 
into the hands of children and serious injuries or tragic deaths may 
result. Those gun distributors and sellers who fail to conduct adequate 
background checks, or fail to take other measures to ensure that guns 
to do not fall into criminal hands should not be free from liability. 
Gun merchants have a responsibility to conduct their business safely 
and protect the lives of children. When they fail to do so they should 
be held accountable in a court of law.
  Gun manufacturers and merchants should be liable in courts of law 
when their negligent acts result in the death or injury to a minor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and the amendments that strive to 
make some improvements that will provide relief to parties that need 
protection were closed out without consideration. For the reasons above 
stated, I reject this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my Democratic colleague on the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
Firearms Act.
  It will prohibit lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, legal 
distributors, dealers or importers for damages resulting from the 
misuse of a firearm by a third party.
  The bill is very similar to a House bill that I joined with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) in sponsoring earlier this year. 
Our House bill achieves the same objectives as the Senate bill now 
before us, and the House bill has been cosponsored by 257 Members of 
this body.
  The lawsuits against the firearms industry are nothing more than 
thinly veiled attempts to circumvent the legislative process and 
achieve gun control through litigation.
  Frustrated that Congress and most State legislatures have rejected 
repeated attempts to have gun control imposed, some have now turned to 
the courts in their effort to limit the legal availability of firearms.
  I want for my constituents and for all Americans to be able to 
purchase guns for lawful purposes. The vast majority of gun owners use 
their firearms responsibly. They should not be restricted in their 
future purchases because the threat of lawsuits has rendered the 
American market economically unattractive for the manufacturers.
  While the bill before us will prohibit lawsuits against manufacturers 
and others in the chain of distribution based upon misuse of the 
firearm, it does not interfere with traditional remedies for damages 
resulting from defects or design in the manufacture of products.
  The bill provides no shelter to those who would sell firearms 
illegally. It does not affect suits against anyone who has violated 
other State or Federal laws.
  This bill is a commonsense measure to eliminate lawsuits which 
unjustly interrupt the legal sale of a legal product.
  A majority of States, including my home State of Virginia, enacted 
similar laws prohibiting these suits.
  With our votes today, we will provide a much-needed additional 
response. I urge approval of the measure.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague from Virginia would 
come meet with 10 families from the Washington area who had victims 
killed during the sniper attacks 3 years ago, as well as the police 
officers from New Jersey, and tell them that those lawsuits were 
frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  I would first like to say that I support the rights of gun owners and 
hunters, but this bill makes it clear this is

[[Page 23266]]

not about the second amendment. This bill is about a direct assault on 
our civil justice system that endorses unscrupulous corporate behavior.
  Once again, with this bill, democracy has been thwarted by bringing 
this bill to the floor. Very reasonable amendments were offered, but 
the majority adopted a restrictive rule that prevented them from being 
heard on the floor today.
  One of those amendments would have expanded the ban on armor-piercing 
bullets also. For God's sake, who in this country needs to own armor-
piercing bullets?
  We are not legislating via the intended democratic process. The 
people of this country want and deserve an open and participatory 
government, not law by fiat.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the principal author of the bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for his help in bringing this bill to the 
floor. He has been a leader on this bill in shepherding it through the 
Committee on the Judiciary time and time again.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for 
introducing this bill with me through the last three sessions of 
Congress and all the other Members who have strongly supported the 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. Almost the same bill passed 
this House on this floor 285 to 140. Over 60 Democrats supported it.
  This legislation will stop baseless lawsuits against gun 
manufacturers or dealers based on the criminal or unlawful third-party 
misuse of firearms.
  This may seem like an obvious idea. After all, would we hold a car 
company responsible if a driver gets drunk or reckless and hits 
somebody with a vehicle? Of course not. This is the United States of 
America where we are responsible for our own actions; but yet these 
frivolous lawsuits against a vital, legitimate and perfectly lawful 
industry have continued unabated for the last several years in the 
simple hope of bankrupting this industry.
  This is a commonsense, logical piece of legislation whose time has 
come. The States, the courts and the American people have decided again 
and again that these harmful and baseless lawsuits are unfair and must 
be done away with.
  If anyone does not believe me, let us take a look at this map. It 
shows that 33 States, or two-thirds of the United States, have laws 
prohibiting these same frivolous lawsuits. These States consider it 
fair and just to prevent these junk lawsuits. I am proud to say my home 
State of Florida is one of those States. The bill we are considering 
today is designed to simply mirror these States and what they have done 
to provide a unified system of laws United States-wide.
  There have also been dozens and dozens of lawsuits at the local, 
State, and Federal levels which have rejected this theory that gun 
manufacturers should be held liable for what violent criminals do with 
their lawful products.
  I have three charts here which list in detail these cases. It is 
really quite impressive the number of these frivolous lawsuits that 
have been rejected out of hand.
  If my colleagues would bear with me, I would like to focus on a 
recent case in this last chart which is circled. This case took place 
in the County of Los Angeles, California. The cities of Los Angeles, 
San Francisco, and 12 other California municipalities filed lawsuits 
against 28 manufacturers, six distributors and three associations. This 
was a mammoth case and they lost. They appealed it, and it was 
unanimously upheld by a lower court and the appellate court.
  I would remind my colleagues that this is an idea that has been 
enormously popular with the public, also. A March 2005 poll conducted 
by the Moore Information Public Information Research Company showed 
that a remarkable 79 percent of the American people believe that 
firearm manufacturers should not be held legally responsible for 
violence committed by armed criminals.
  The fact of the matter is that there are several pending lawsuits 
which continue to abuse the judicial system and would threaten 
legitimate, lawful businesses, including in New York City and right 
here in the District of Columbia.
  We must also consider that just the mere threat of these suits or 
taking the first couple of legal steps to defend these suits simply can 
be enough to force some of the smaller companies out of business. As 
one proponent of this tactic once bragged, we are going to make the gun 
industry die a ``death by a thousand cuts.''
  This legislation will end these coercive and undemocratic lawsuits.
  I remind my colleagues and those who are watching at home that this 
legislation is very narrowly tailored to allow suits against any bad 
actors to proceed. It includes carefully crafted exceptions to allow 
legitimate victims their day in court for cases involving defective 
firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior by a gun maker or 
seller, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an irresponsible 
person.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are voting on this 
bill. It has been a 6-year effort. It is with a great deal of 
satisfaction to the 257 bipartisan cosponsors that this bill, H.R. 800, 
as amended by the Senate and passed by the Senate two to one, 65 to 31, 
is poised to pass in this Congress as a bipartisan law.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us in voting for this piece of 
legislation.
  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.

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
doing such a wonderful job on handling this issue.
  Let me first say something. The legislation in front of us, as far as 
I am concerned, is frivolous. When we think about the millions and 
millions of lawsuits that have been filed over the last 10 years, only 
57 have actually involved the gun industry, 57, and for that we are 
taking time up here in Congress.
  We hear constantly that this is a good bipartisan bill, that over 200 
of our Members, Republicans and Democrats, basically support this 
legislation. May I remind many of my colleagues that the NRA has put 
extraordinary pressure on Members, and certainly even in the States.
  With that being said, there are people out there that need to protect 
our victims, and they should be protecting our victims. My family went 
through a terrible tragedy years ago, and it was because of gun 
violence.
  Now, they are saying that the gun industry has nothing to do with the 
person that buys the gun. Well, I say they do have a purpose. We know 
that the gun industry, when they ship the guns to gun dealers, and then 
a gun is used in the commission of a crime, through the tracing it goes 
back to the gun dealer to say that this store bought the gun from here. 
They keep statistics on this. In New York State, over 60 percent of the 
guns used in crime are traced back to the manufacturers.
  With that being said, the majority of our gun stores are legitimate 
owners. But again, 1 percent is causing over 60 percent of the harm in 
this Nation. With this bill that is going to be passed today, and it 
will be passed today and will be signed by the President, is not

[[Page 23267]]

doing any favor for the citizens of the United States.
  Our courts are working, and they should continue to work. But again, 
it comes down to where the victims should be allowed to have their day 
in court. What we are doing to the gun industry is allowing them to 
have a blanket, a blanket. My colleagues say that we can have our day 
in court. The hoops that they will have to go through will make it near 
impossible.
  The States that have the right, through their attorneys general, to 
sue the gun manufacturers should have their day in court. We are not 
looking to put anyone out of business. We are not looking to take the 
right of someone to own a gun, but the gun industry and these bad 
dealers are costing this country over $100 billion in health care every 
single year, and here we are going to give them blanket immunity.
  I do not understand this. This is not common sense. This is not 
protecting the American people. And when the American people and my gun 
owners hear exactly what should be done, they agree with us. It is up 
to the American people to have their voices heard.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation. It is not good for 
the American people, it is not good for the health care system.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time and I thank him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 
their visionary leadership on this bipartisan legislation.
  The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the second amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States, and the Protection of Lawful 
Commerce in Arms Act today will reaffirm our Nation's ability to keep, 
bear, and manufacture lawful firearms in the United States of America. 
By passing this bill, Congress will prevent one or a few State courts 
from bankrupting the national firearms industry with baseless lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, a gun, by its very nature, is dangerous. But throughout 
the history of tort law in this Nation, we have built on the principle 
of individual responsibility in which a product may not be defined as 
defective unless there is something wrong with the product, not with 
the way that it is used. The progeny of cases that have emerged in 
recent years against gun manufacturers flies in the face of both our 
Constitution as well as the history of common law and its tradition.
  It is time for Congress to fulfill its congressional duty, exercise 
its authority under the commerce clause, and prevent a few State courts 
from bankrupting our national firearms industry that has as its 
foundation our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the gun industry would like to see this 
legislation passed today so that they can protect their profits. But I 
would like to talk about the real people who will be affected by this 
bill, people who have suffered enough.
  I would like to talk about a 26-year-old father of two from my home 
State of Massachusetts whose death was a direct result of negligence by 
a gun maker. Five years ago, Danny Guzman was leaving a holiday party 
to go home to see his daughters, Tammy and Selena, but he never made it 
home. Standing on the street, Danny Guzman was struck down by a stray 
bullet fired from a 9 millimeter handgun. That gun that killed him made 
its way into criminal hands because a gun factory employee had stolen 
it from his workplace and sold it on the black market.
  But this is no isolated incident. In that same year, over 25,000 guns 
hit America's streets after being stolen or lost under suspicious 
circumstances. And, according to court testimony in the case, stealing 
guns happened at the plant ``all the time,'' and it happened all the 
time because no system was in place to prevent theft. It happened all 
the time because the gun company was negligent. And, in this particular 
case, the employee got his job at the gun plant despite a criminal 
record that included a history of drug abuse, theft, and violence.
  Mr. Speaker, when big tobacco lied about the dangers of smoking, we 
held them accountable. When the pharmaceutical industry markets 
dangerous drugs, we hold them accountable, too. But what do we do when 
gun makers and dealers ruin countless lives through their reckless 
behavior, through their negligence? This House considers legislation to 
provide them special protection and to deny gun victims and their 
families the justice they deserve.
  If this bill becomes law, the Guzman family in Massachusetts, in 
addition to losing a husband, a son, and a father, will lose their 
right of legal recourse and justice. It would be an unspeakably cruel 
case of justice denied.
  I strongly oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same. Businesses in the firearms industry do not deserve special 
treatment under the law.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) who is always welcome on this side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise today in support of Senate bill 397, the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the Committee on the Judiciary for all their hard 
work on this much-needed piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I consider myself a strong supporter of the second 
amendment to our Constitution and truly believe in the rights of 
Americans to keep and bear arms.
  For a long time, I have been very dismayed at the anti-gun lobby's 
effort to litigate the gun industry to death. Taking gun manufacturers, 
wholesalers, and distributors to court for the actions of criminals is 
ludicrous. These are mostly small to medium-sized business owners who 
cannot afford to pay lawyer fees to avoid lawsuits.
  Senate bill 397 is a bipartisan effort to reform the civil liability 
system to ensure that those who lawfully make and sell firearms cannot 
be held liable for the misuse and criminal use of those firearms.
  The current system is equivalent to someone stealing my Chevrolet 
truck, committing a crime with it, and then GM being sued for millions 
of dollars for their misdeeds. Now this, to me, is ridiculous. It is 
time for Congress to derail the efforts of certain organizations whose 
aim is to bankrupt the firearms industry through litigation.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
supporting Senate bill 397, a commonsense measure to protect small 
businesses and preserve the second amendment rights of American 
citizens.
  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

[[Page 23268]]

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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am a lifetime member of the 
National Rifle Association and a life-long shooting sports enthusiast. 
I have been an outspoken supporter of second amendment rights and 
strongly support the original intent of this bill.
  I regret the legislation we are voting on today contains the Kohl-
Reed storage device amendment. We need to protect the firearms 
industry, an industry I would like to remind my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle is responsible for arming our troops, our law 
enforcement professionals, including the Capitol Police. But 
responsible gun owners should not have further limits placed on their 
second amendment rights. Unfortunately, it has become necessary to 
enact legislation to protect responsible owners, manufacturers, and 
sellers from frivolous liability lawsuits and criminals and others who 
irresponsibly handle firearms.
  The original legislation from the House had 257 cosponsors and the 
original bill in the Senate, which did not contain the Kohl-Reed 
amendment, had 62 cosponsors. I do not understand why then we are about 
to pass a measure that is a compromise of the two bills that were 
overwhelmingly supported by both Chambers.
  Among the provisions of this amendment is a requirement of using 
devices like a trigger lock to protect an individual from a release of 
liability if a criminal should take their weapon. For example, trigger 
locks can violate a fundamental safety rule of keeping everything out 
of the trigger guard until ready to shoot. The very real safety hazard 
is that the lock could actually depress the trigger as it enters the 
trigger guard if the weapon is not cleared.
  Having said that, though, I think it is very important and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 
because we need to take immediate steps to protect the firearms 
industry and manufacturers and responsible gun owners from the liberal 
left's culture of frivolous litigation and to legislate by lawsuit.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me mention that the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has a long and prominent 
history in knowing the laws of this Nation in his earlier life, and as 
well rendering them in the proper manner.
  And I want to follow the comments that you made about the amendments 
offered in the committee, and as well make mention of the fact of the 
kind of complete reckless, if you will, lacking of sensitivity, to 
putting forward real balanced legislation.
  In our dissenting views, the Democrats of this committee mentioned 
courts around the country, and by the way, there are views about gun 
safety across the aisle. But courts around the country have recognized 
that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by this bill are 
grounded in well-accepted legal principles, including negligence, 
products liability and public nuisance.
  These courts have held that those who make and sell guns, like all 
others in society, are obligated to use reasonable care in selling and 
designing their products and that they may be liable for foreseeable 
injurious consequences.
  The courts have answered this question. They have rejected frivolous 
lawsuits. And those that have merit they have accepted. I offered an 
amendment that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit 
brought by a plaintiff who was harmed as a result of an unlawful 
transfer of a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large-
capacity ammunition feeding device.
  These particular arms, illegal. And therefore the manufacturer does 
have some liability in it. And this latest offering of the bill, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and myself offered a bill 
that would exempt law enforcement officers.
  This bill does not even exempt law enforcement officers. And even in 
this climate of homeland security, it is well known that our first 
responders need to be protected by the reckless use of machine guns and 
AK-47s. And this legislation turns a blind eye to reality. It turns a 
blind eye to the shooting of children. It turns a blind eye to the 
sniper in Washington, to the Philadelphia mother.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This is not the 
second amendment. This is the NRA free legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 397, the 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and thank the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for bringing 
this legislation forward.
  The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly declares that 
the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
Despite this fundamental protection, an extreme minority determined to 
restrict the supply of firearms and firearms ownership has discovered a 
new tool, frivolous lawsuits.
  Recently, more than 30 cities and counties have filed lawsuits 
against the firearms industry alleging that the industry is liable for 
the actions of third parties, including those that use lawful firearms 
in a criminal manner. Many legitimate firearms manufacturers could be 
forced to go out of business due to the prohibitive costs of defending 
these targeted lawsuits.
  If the courts are so allowed to decide the fate of gun manufacturers, 
then the trial lawyers and the courts will effectively be regulating 
the supply of firearms and thus the right of citizens to bear arms.
  However, legislatures, not courts, are the proper forums for deciding 
the scope of regulation for the firearms industry. S. 397 would prevent 
plaintiffs from bringing civil actions against firearm manufacturers 
and sellers for the criminal or unlawful misuse of third parties of 
properly made firearms. This bill will help to put an end to the 
judiciary legislating in the firearms field.
  It will also serve as an important statement that responsibility for 
wrongdoing should rest with the wrongdoer. As Oliver Wendall Holmes 
stated in an 1894 Harvard Law Review

[[Page 23269]]

article: ``Why is not a man who sells firearms answerable for assaults 
committed with pistols bought of him since he must be taken to know the 
probability that sooner or later someone will buy a pistol of him for 
some unlawful end?''
  The principle seems to be pretty well established in this country, at 
least, that everyone has a right to rely upon his fellow man acting 
lawfully. Over 30 States have enacted legislation to prevent junk 
lawsuits against the firearms industry based on the criminal behavior 
of others. These States have thus declared that the responsibility for 
wrongdoing should rest with wrongdoers. Congress should follow the 
States' lead and pass S. 397.
  The House has passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on 
several occasions. Now the Senate has passed it. We have a chance to 
send this bill to the President of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  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:

                                         American Bar Association,


                                  Governmental Affairs Office,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2005.
       Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the American Bar 
     Association to express our strong opposition to S.397, the 
     Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and to similar 
     legislation to enact special tort laws for the firearms 
     industry. The ABA opposes S.397, and has opposed similar 
     legislation in the past two Congresses, because we believe 
     the proposed legislation is overbroad and would unwisely and 
     unnecessarily intrude into an area of traditional state 
     responsibility.
       The responsibility for setting substantive legal standards 
     for tort actions in each state's courts, including standards 
     for negligence and product liability actions, has been the 
     province of state legislatures and an integral function of 
     state common law since our nation was founded. S.397 would 
     preempt state substantive law standards for most negligence 
     and product liability actions for this one industry, 
     abrogating state law in cases in which the defendant is a gun 
     manufacturer, gun seller or gun trade association, and would 
     insulate this new class of protected defendants from almost 
     all ordinary civil liability actions. In our view, the 
     legitimate concerns of some about the reach of a number of 
     suits filed by cities and state governmental units several 
     years ago have since been answered by the deliberative, 
     competent action of state courts and within the traditions of 
     state responsibility for administering tort law.
       There is no evidence that federal legislation is needed or 
     justified. There is no hearing record in Congress or other 
     evidence to contradict the fact that the state courts are 
     handling their responsibilities competently in this area of 
     law. There is no data of any kind to support claims made by 
     the industry that it is incurring extraordinary costs due to 
     litigation, that it faces a significant number of suits, or 
     that current state law is in any way inadequate. The Senate 
     has not examined the underlying claims of the industry about 
     state tort cases, choosing not to hold a single hearing on 
     S.397 or its predecessor bills in the two previous 
     Congresses. Proponents of this legislation cannot, in fact, 
     point to a single court decision, final judgment or award 
     that has been paid out that supports their claims of a 
     ``crisis''. All evidence points to the conclusion that state 
     legislatures and state courts have been and are actively 
     exercising their responsibilities in this area of law with 
     little apparent difficulty.
       S. 397 proposes to exempt his one industry from state 
     negligence law. The proposed federal negligence law standard 
     will unfairly exempt firearms industry defendants from the 
     oldest principle of civil liability law: that persons, or 
     companies who act negligently should be accountable to 
     victims harmed by this failure of responsibility. Negligence 
     laws in all 50 states traditionally impose civil liability 
     when individuals or businesses fail to use reasonable care to 
     minimize the foreseeable risk that others will be injured and 
     injury results. But this proposed legislation would preempt 
     the laws of the 50 states to create a special, higher 
     standard

[[Page 23270]]

     for negligence actions for this one protected class, 
     different than for any other industry, protecting them from 
     liability for their own negligence in all but extremely 
     narrow specified exceptions. The ABA believes that state law 
     standards for negligence and its legal bedrock duty of 
     reasonable care should remain the standard for gun industry 
     accountability in state civil courts, as these state 
     standards for the rest of our nation's individuals, 
     businesses and industries.
       The proposed federal product liability standards will 
     unfairly insulate firearm industry defendants from 
     accountability in state courts for design defects in their 
     products. The proposed new federal standard would preempt the 
     product liability laws in all 50 states with a new, higher 
     standard that would protect this industry even for failing to 
     implement safety devices that would prevent common, 
     foreseeable injuries, so long as any injury or death suffered 
     by victims resulted when the gun was not ``used as 
     intended''.
       Under existing product liability laws in most states, 
     manufacturers must adopt feasible safety devices that would 
     prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably 
     misused, regardless of whether the uses are ``intended'' by 
     the manufacturer, or whether the product ``fails'' or 
     ``improperly'' functions. Thus automakers have been held 
     civilly liable for not making cars crashworthy, even though 
     the ``intended use'' is not to crash the car. Manufacturers 
     of cigarette lighters must make them childproof, even though 
     children are not ``intended'' to use them. Under this 
     proposed legislation, however, state laws would be preempted 
     so that gun manufacturers would enjoy a special immunity.
       Enactment of S. 397 would also undermine responsible 
     federal oversight of consumer safety. The broad and, we 
     believe, unprecedented immunity from civil liability that 
     would result from enactment of S. 397 must be viewed against 
     the existing legal backdrop of the present, unparalleled 
     immunity the firearms industry enjoys from any federal safety 
     regulation. Unlike other consumer products, there is no 
     federal law or regulatory authority that sets minimum safety 
     standards for domestically manufactured firearms. This is 
     because the firearms industry was able to gain an exemption 
     for firearms from the 1972-enacted Consumer Product Safety 
     Act, the primary federal law that protects consumers from 
     products that present unreasonable risk of injury. Over the 
     last 30 years, an average of 200 children under the age of 14 
     and over a thousand adults each year have died in gun 
     accidents which might have been prevented by existing but 
     unused safety technologies. A 1991 Government Accounting 
     Office report estimated that 31 percent of U.S. children's 
     accidental firearm deaths could have been prevented by the 
     addition of two simple existing devices to firearms: trigger 
     locks and load-indicator devices. Sadly, these minimal safety 
     features are still not required.
       This bill, if enacted, would insulate the firearms industry 
     from almost all civil actions, in addition to its existing 
     protection from any consumer product safety regulations. Such 
     special status for this single industry raises serious 
     concerns about its constitutionality; victims of gun violence 
     have the right--as do persons injured through negligence of 
     any party--to the equal protection of the law.
       The risk that states may at some future date fail to 
     appropriately resolve their tort responsibilities in an area 
     of law--where there is no evidence of any failure to date--
     cannot justify the unprecedented federal preemption of state 
     responsibilities proposed in this legislation. The ABA 
     believes that the states will continue to sort out these 
     issues capably without a federal rewriting of state 
     substantive tort law standards. The wiser course for 
     Congress, we believe, is to respect the ability of states to 
     continue to administer their historic responsibility to 
     define the negligence and product liability standards to be 
     used in their state courts. For these reasons, we urge you to 
     reject S. 397.
           Sincerely,
     Robert D. Evans.
                                  ____

       Dear Senators and Representatives: The undersigned former 
     Directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
     (``ATF'') write to express our grave concern over pending 
     legislation that the Congress is now considering. S. 397 and 
     H.R. 800 would provide sweeping immunity to members of the 
     gun industry in numerous cases. While there are many 
     disturbing aspects to this bill from a policy perspective, 
     this letter concerns one that is especially disturbing to us, 
     as it threatens ATF's ability to fully and effectively 
     enforce our nation's gun laws.
       Supporters of gun industry immunity have added language to 
     S. 397 and H.R. 800 that was not included in the gun immunity 
     bills considered by the last Congress (H.R. 2037, S. 659, S. 
     1805, and S. 1806). This new language includes provisions 
     that threaten to block law enforcement efforts by the ATF, as 
     well as state governments. Specifically, the legislation 
     would now prohibit certain law enforcement ``administrative 
     proceeding(s).'' Sec. 4(5)(A). This goes well beyond barring 
     civil damages suits, and is apparently intended to curtail 
     law enforcement proceedings against gun sellers who violate 
     the law. Given the serious and persistent danger posed to 
     society by irresponsible gun sellers who supply the criminal 
     gun market and other prohibited purchasers, we find it 
     outrageous that Congress would contemplate tying the hands of 
     law enforcement to protect scofflaw dealers.
       This broad new language threatens to block any ATF 
     ``administrative proceeding'' that seeks ``fines, or 
     penalties, or other relief'' resulting from unlawful use of 
     firearms by third parties. Sec. 4(5)(A). The bill would 
     likely prohibit ATF from initiating enforcement proceedings 
     including those to:
       Prohibit ATF from initiating proceedings to revoke a gun 
     dealer's federal firearm license if the dealer supplies guns 
     to criminals or other prohibited buyers. Current law enables 
     ATF to initiate proceedings to revoke a federal firearm 
     license if a gun dealer willfully violates federal law, such 
     as by transferring a gun to a criminal. 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 923(e).
       Limit ATF's ability to prevent the importation of non-
     sporting firearms used frequently in crimes. Current law 
     enables ATF to initiate proceedings to prohibit the 
     importation of firearms that do not have a ``sporting 
     purpose.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(d)(3).
       We know from experience how important it is that ATF be 
     able to enforce our nation's gun laws to prevent firearms 
     from being obtained by terrorists, other criminals, and the 
     gun traffickers who supply them. To protect our citizens from 
     the scourge of gun violence Congress should be strengthening 
     our laws and increasing ATF's resources and ability to 
     enforce those laws. To handcuff ATF, as this bill does, will 
     only serve to shield corrupt gun sellers, and facilitate 
     criminals and terrorists who seek to wreak havoc with deadly 
     weapons. To take such anti-law enforcement actions in the 
     post-9/11 age, when we know that suspected terrorists are 
     obtaining firearms, and may well seek them from irresponsible 
     gun dealers, is nothing short of madness.
       The bill also would likely limit the ability of state 
     attorneys general to bring actions against gun sellers who 
     violate state law, such as those who engage in ``straw 
     sales'' to someone who illegally buys guns on behalf of 
     prohibited buyers. Had this bill been the law, California may 
     not have been able to levy the $14.5 million fines Wal-Mart 
     recently paid to settle a civil suit brought by the 
     California Attorney General concerning numerous violations of 
     state law, including sales to straw buyers. The bill would 
     also jeopardize state and local law enforcement proceedings 
     to shut down ``kitchen table'' dealers who sell guns out of 
     their homes to criminals.
       In closing, we would note that many of us have other 
     reservations as well about substantive aspects of S. 397/H.R. 
     800. But even without those troublesome aspects, the 
     restrictions placed on law enforcement should be reason 
     enough for Congress to reject this dangerous legislation. We 
     urge Congress to reject S. 397 and H.R. 800.
     Stephen Higgins,
       Director (Ret.) ATF, 1982-1995.
     Rex Davis,
       Director (Ret.) ATF, 1970-1978.
                                  ____

       Dear Member of Congress: Please oppose any legislation that 
     would limit the legal rights of gun violence victims.
       The National Rifle Association and others in the gun lobby 
     are pushing legislation that would deprive gun violence 
     victims of their legal rights and give special legal 
     privileges to the gun industry (House bill H.R. 800 and 
     Senate bill S. 397).
       Similar legislation was defeated in the last Congress, and 
     it must be stopped again in the 109th Congress.
       Recently, gun violence victims have exercised their legal 
     rights and held reckless and irresponsible gun sellers 
     accountable:
       Families of victims of the 2002 D.C.-area sniper attacks 
     won a $2.5 million settlement from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, 
     the dealer who ``lost'' the snipers' assault rifle, and 
     Bushmaster Firearms, the assault weapon maker who supplied 
     Bull's Eye, while turning a blind eye to its disgraceful 
     record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Further, as 
     part of the settlement, Bushmaster agreed to inform its 
     dealers of safer sales practices that will prevent other 
     criminals from obtaining guns--something Bushmaster had never 
     done before.
       Two former New Jersey police officers, Ken McGuire and Dave 
     Lemongello, shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun 
     negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer, won a $1 million 
     settlement. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other 
     handguns, in a cash sale to what turned out to be a straw 
     purchasing team. After the lawsuit, the dealer, as well as 
     two other area pawnshops, implemented safer practices to 
     prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of 
     ending large-volume sales of handguns. These reforms go 
     beyond the law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or 
     distributors.
       If the NRA's special interest legislation had passed 
     Congress, these victims would never have obtained justice and 
     it would be business as usual for these dangerous gun 
     sellers.
       Instead of trying to close the courthouse doors to victims, 
     Congress should be investigating the gun industry, cracking 
     down on

[[Page 23271]]

     the corrupt dealers who arm drug gangs and other criminals, 
     and passing stronger laws to stop gun deaths.
       Please protect gun violence victims and OPPOSE any Immunity 
     legislation (H.R. 800/S. 397) that would deprive them of 
     their legal rights.
           Sincerely,


                            national groups

       Alliance for Justice.
       American Association of School Psychologists.
       American Association of Suicidology.
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       American Humanist Association.
       American Public Health Association.
       Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence United With the 
     Million Mom March.
       Child Welfare League of America.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Church Women United.
       Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.
       Common Cause.
       Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes Leadership Team.
       Consumer Federation of America.
       Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
       Disciples Justice Action Network.
       Equal Partners in Faith.
       Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
       Hadassah The Women's Zionist Organization Of America.
       HELP Network.
       League of Women Voters of the U.S.
       Legal Community Against Violence.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Council of Women's Organization.
       National Research Center for Women & Families.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Presbyterian Church (USA).
       Public Citizen.
       Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
       States United to Prevent Gun Violence.
       The American Jewish Committee.
       The Ms. Foundation for Women.
       The Society of Public Health Education (SOPHE).
       The United States Conference of Mayors.
       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
       Veteran Feminists of America.
       Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press.


                       State/Local Organizations

     Arizona
       Physicians for Social Responsibility--Arizona Chapter
     Arkansas
       Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
     California
       Khadafy Foundation for Non-Violence.
       Concerned Citizens of Leisure World.
       Sisters of Saint Joseph of Orange.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Marin Friends Meeting.
       Orange County Substance Abuse Prevention Network.
       Youth Alive.
       Gray Panthers.
       Society of Public Health Education.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility--Sacramento.
       Orange County Citizens for the Prevention Of Gun Violence.
       Violence Prevention Coalition of Orange County.
       Women Against Gun Violence.
       Long Beach Coalition for the Prevention of Gun Violence.
       Alameda County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Contra Costa County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Los Angeles County West Million Mom March Chapter.
       Marin County Million Mom March Chapter Napa.
       Solano County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Nevada County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Orange County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Sacramento Valley Million Mom March Chapter.
       San Diego County Million Mom March Chapter.
       San Fernando Valley Million Mom March Chapter.
       Santa Clarita Million Mom March Chapter.
       Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County Million Mom March 
     Chapter.
       Sonoma County Million Mom March Chapter.
       South Bay/Long Beach Million Mom March Chapter.
     Colorado
       Colorado Progressive Coalition.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility--Colorado Chapter.
       Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund.
       Denver Million Mom March Chapter.
     Connecticut
       Hog River Music, LLC.
       Society of Public Health Education.
       Greater New Haven N.O.W.
       New England Coalition To Prevent Gun Violence.
       Central Connecticut Million Mom March Chapter.
       Fairfield County Million Mom March Chapter.
     District of Columbia
       STARS.
       R.O.O.T.
       Life After Homicide.
       Society of Public Health Education--National Capitol Area 
     Chapter.
       District of Columbia Million Mom March Chapter.
     Florida
       IRC Coalition Against Gun Violence.
       Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
       Vero Beach Coalition against Gun Violence.
       Central Florida Million Mom March Chapter.
       Northeast Florida Million Mom March Chapter.
       South Florida Million Mom March Chapter.
       Tampa Bay Million Mom March Chapter.
     Georgia
       American Public Health Association.
       Georgia Federation of Professional Health Education.
       Metro Atlanta Million Mom March Chapter.
     Illinois
       Citizens Resource for Children.
       Episcopal Peace Fellowship Chicago Consumer Coalition.
       Chicago Survivors Million Mom March Chapter.
       North Suburban Chicagoland Million Mom March Chapter.
       Southwest Chicagoland Million Mom March Chapter.
       Springfield Million Mom March Chapter.
     Indiana
       Hispanic/African American Public Policy Institute.
       Infinite Inc.
       Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence.
     Iowa
       University of Iowa CPH/CBH.
       Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence.
     Kentucky
       Lexington and Central Kentucky Million Mom March Chapter.
     Maine
       Action Committee of Peace Action.
       Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.
       New England Coalition To Prevent Gun Violence.
       Southern Maine Million Mom March Chapter.
     Maryland
       Life After Homicide.
       Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, Inc.
       Ceasefire Maryland.
       Montgomery County Million Mom March Chapter.
     Massachusetts
       The Sandbox Foundation.
       Stop Handgun Violence.
       Greater Boston Million Mom March Chapter.
       Massachusetts's Consumers' Coalition.
       New England Coalition To Prevent Gun Violence.
     Michigan
       League of Women Voters of Michigan.
       Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence.
       Detroit Million Mom March Chapter.
       East Metro Detroit Million Mom March Chapter.
       Mid-Michigan/Lansing Million Mom March Chapter.
       Novi Million Mom March Chapter.
       Southwest Michigan Million Mom March Chapter.
       West Metro Detroit/Washtenaw County Million Mom March 
     Chapter.
     Minnesota
       Citizens for a Safer Minnesota.
       The Healing Circle.
       League Of Women Voters of Duluth.
       Northland Minnesota Million Mom March Chapter.
       Twin Cities Million Mom March Chapter.
     Missouri
       Missouri Society for Public Health Education.
     Nevada
       XPOZ.
     New Hampshire
       New Hampshire Million Mom March Chapter.
       New England Coalition To Prevent Gun Violence.
     New Jersey
       Union for Reform Judaism, NJWHVC.
       Woodbridge Homeowners for Quality of Life.
       Coalition For Peace Action.
       Society of Public Health Education.
       Ceasefire NJ.
       Bergen/Passaic County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Essex County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Mercer County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Shore County Million Mom March Chapter.
     New York
       Men Elevating Leadership.
       Mothers Against Guns, Inc.
       NY Chapter of the Society for Public Health Education.

[[Page 23272]]

       New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NA YGV).
       Lenox Hill School Based Primary Care Program.
       New York Public Interest Research Group.
       Brooklyn King's Million Mom March Chapter.
       Broome County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Capitol Region Million Mom March Chapter.
       Manhattan Million Mom March Chapter.
       Nassau County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Queens Million Mom March Chapter.
       Suffolk County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Westchester County Million Mom March Chapter.
     North Carolina
       North Carolinians Against Gun Violence.
       Forsyth Mothers And Others Million Mom March Chapter.
       Wake County Million Mom March Chapter.
       West Triangle Million Mom March Chapter.
     Ohio
       Women Against Gun Violence.
       Inter-religious Partners in Action of Greater Cleveland.
       Diocesan Social Action Office of Cleveland.
       Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.
       Cleveland Million Mom March Chapter.
       Greater Cincinnati Million Mom March Chapter.
     Oklahoma
       Oklahomans For Gun Safety Million Mom March Chapter.
       University of Oklahoma.
     Oregon
       Oregon Consumer League.
       Ceasefire Oregon.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility--Oregon.
       Lane County (Eugene) Million Mom March Chapter.
       Multnomah County (Portland) Million Mom March Chapter.
     Pennsylvania
       Not Fair!
       Ceasefire Pennsylvania.
       Allegheny County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Center County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Montgomery and Delaware County Million Mom March Chapter.
       Philadelphia Million Mom March Chapter.
     Rhode Island
       Rhode Island Million Mom March Chapter.
       New England Coalition To Prevent Gun Violence.
     Texas
       Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Central Texas (Austin) Million Mom March Chapter.
       Dallas Million Mom March Chapter.
       South Texas Million Mom March Chapter.
     Utah
       Peace and Justice Commission of Salt Lake Catholic Diocese.
       Gun Violence Prevention Campaign of Utah.
       Salt Lake City Million Mom March Chapter.
     Vermont
       New England Coalition To Prevent Gun Violence.
     Virginia
       VA Interfaith Center for Public Policy.
       Charlottesville Million Mom March Chapter.
       Hampton Roads Million Mom March Chapter.
       Northern Virginia Million Mom March Chapter.
       Richmond Million Mom March Chapter.
       Roanoke Million Mom March Chapter.
     Washington
       Clark County (Vancouver) Million Mom March Chapter.
     Wisconsin
       Mothers Against Gun Violence.
       Peace and Justice Committee of the ELCA of Greater 
     Milwaukee.
       Milwaukee Million Mom March Chapter.
       Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort.
                                  ____

                                        The University of Michigan


                                                   Law School,

                                                    Ann Arbor, MI.
       Dear Senators and Representatives: As a professor of law at 
     the University of Michigan Law School, I write to alert you 
     to the legal implications of S. 397 and H.R. 800, the 
     ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' My colleagues, 
     who join me in signing this letter, are professors at law 
     schools around the country. This bill would represent a 
     substantial and radical departure from traditional principles 
     of American tort law. Though described as an effort to limit 
     the unwarranted expansion of tort liability, the bill would 
     in fact represent a dramatic narrowing of traditional tort 
     principles by providing one industry with a literally 
     unprecedented immunity from liability for the foreseeable 
     consequences of negligent conduct.
       S. 397 and H.R. 800, described as ``a bill to prohibit 
     civil liability actions from being brought or continued 
     against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of 
     firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse 
     of their products by others,'' would largely immunize those 
     in the firearms industry from liability for negligence. This 
     would represent a sharp break with traditional principles of 
     tort liability. No other industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed 
     such a blanket freedom from responsibility for the 
     foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent 
     conduct.
       It might be suggested that the bill would merely preclude 
     what traditional tort law ought to be understood to preclude 
     in any event--lawsuits for damages resulting from third party 
     misconduct, and in particular from the criminal misuse of 
     firearms. This argument, however, rests on a fundamental 
     misunderstanding of American tort law. American law has never 
     embraced a rule freeing defendants from liability for the 
     foreseeable consequences of their negligence merely because 
     those consequences may include the criminal conduct of third 
     parties. Numerous cases from every American jurisdiction 
     could be cited here, but let the Restatement (Second) of 
     Torts suffice:

     ``449. TORTIOUS OR CRIMINAL ACTS THE PROBABILITY OF WHICH 
                   MAKES ACTOR'S CONDUCT NEGLIGENT

       ``If the likelihood that a third person may act in a 
     particular manner is the hazard or one of the hazards which 
     makes the actor negligent, such an act whether innocent, 
     negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal does not 
     prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused 
     thereby.'' (emphasis supplied)
       Similarly, actors may be liable if their negligence enables 
     or facilitates foreseeable third party criminal conduct.
       Thus, car dealers who negligently leave vehicles 
     unattended, railroads who negligently manage trains, hotel 
     operators who negligently fail to secure rooms, and 
     contractors who negligently leave dangerous equipment 
     unguarded are all potentially liable if their conduct creates 
     an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of third party 
     misconduct, including illegal behavior, leading to harm. In 
     keeping with these principles, cases have found that sellers 
     of firearms and other products (whether manufacturers, 
     distributors or dealers) may be liable for negligently 
     supplying customers or downstream sellers whose negligence, 
     in turn, results in injuries caused by third party criminal 
     or negligent conduct. In other words, if the very reason 
     one's conduct is negligent is because it creates a 
     foreseeable risk of illegal third party conduct, that illegal 
     conduct does not sever the causal connection between the 
     negligence and the consequent harm. Of course, defendants are 
     not automatically liable for illegal third party conduct, but 
     are liable only if--given the foreseeable risk and the 
     available precautions--they were unreasonable (negligent) in 
     failing to guard against the danger. In most cases, moreover, 
     the third party wrongdoer will also be liable. But, again, 
     the bottom line is that under traditional tort principles a 
     failure to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable 
     dangerous illegal conduct by others is treated no differently 
     from a failure to guard against any other risk.
       S. 397 and H.R. 800 would abrogate this firmly established 
     principle of tort law. Under this bill, the firearms industry 
     would be the one and only business in which actors would be 
     free utterly to disregard the risk, no matter how high or 
     foreseeable, that their conduct might be creating or 
     exacerbating a potentially preventable risk of third party 
     misconduct. Gun and ammunition makers, distributors, 
     importers, and sellers would, unlike any other business or 
     individual, be free to take no precautions against even the 
     most foreseeable and easily preventable harms resulting from 
     the illegal actions of third parties. And they could engage 
     in this negligent conduct persistently, even with the 
     specific intent of profiting from sales of guns that are 
     foreseeably headed to criminal hands. Under this bill, a 
     firearms dealer, distributor, or manufacturer could park an 
     unguarded open pickup truck full of loaded assault rifles on 
     a city street comer, leave it there for a week, and yet be 
     free from any negligence liability if and when the guns were 
     stolen and used to do harm. A firearms dealer, in most 
     states, could sell 100 guns to the same individual every day, 
     even after the dealer is informed that these guns are being 
     used in crime--even, say, by the same violent street gang.
       It might appear from the face of the bill that S. 397 and 
     H.R. 800 would leave open the possibility of tort liability 
     for truly egregious misconduct, by virtue of several 
     exceptions set forth in Section 4(5)(i). Those exceptions, 
     however, are in fact quite narrow, and would give those in 
     the firearm industry little incentive to attend to the risks 
     of foreseeable third party misconduct.
       One exception, for example would purport to permit certain 
     actions for ``negligent entrustment.'' The bill goes on, 
     however, to define ``negligent entrustment'' extremely 
     narrowly. The exception applies only to sellers, for example, 
     and would not apply to distributors or manufacturers, no 
     matter how egregious their conduct. Even as to sellers, the 
     exception would apply only where the particular person to 
     whom a seller supplies a

[[Page 23273]]

     firearm is one whom the seller knows or ought to know will 
     use it to cause harm. The ``negligent entrustment'' exception 
     would, therefore, not permit any action based on reckless 
     distribution practices, negligent sales to gun traffickers 
     who supply criminals (as in the above example), careless 
     handling of firearms, lack of security, or any of a myriad 
     potentially negligent acts.
       Another exception would leave open the possibility of 
     liability for certain statutory violations, variously 
     defined, including those described under the heading of 
     negligence per se. Statutory violations, however, represent 
     just a narrow special case of negligence liability. No 
     jurisdiction attempts to legislate standards of care as to 
     every detail of life, even in a regulated industry; and there 
     is no need. Why is there no need? Because general principles 
     of tort law make clear that the mere absence of a specific 
     statutory prohibition is not carte blanche for unreasonable 
     or dangerous behavior. S. 397 and H.R. 800 would turn this 
     traditional framework on its head; and free those in the 
     firearms industry to behave as carelessly as they would like, 
     so long as the conduct has not been specifically prohibited. 
     If there is no statute against leaving an open truckload of 
     assault rifles on a street corner, or against selling 100s of 
     guns to the same individual, under this bill there could be 
     no tort liability. Again, this represents radical departure 
     from traditional tort principles.
       My aim here is simply to provide information, and insure 
     that you are not inadvertently misled about the meaning and 
     scope of S. 397 and H.R. 800. As currently drafted, this Bill 
     would not simply protect against the expansion of tort 
     liability, as has been suggested, but would in fact 
     dramatically limit the application of longstanding and 
     otherwise universally applicable tort principles. It provides 
     to firearms makers and distributors a literally unprecedented 
     form of tort immunity not enjoyed or even dreamed of by any 
     other industry.
       Professor Sherman J. Clark, University of Michigan Law 
     School; Professor Richard L. Abel, UCLA Law School; Professor 
     Barbara Bader Aldave, University of Oregon School of Law; 
     Professor Mark F. Anderson, Temple University Beasley School 
     of Law; Professor Emeritus James Francis Bailey, III Indiana 
     University School of Law; Professor Elizabeth Bartholet, 
     Harvard Law School; Professor Peter A Bell, Syracuse 
     University College of Law; Professor Margaret Berger, 
     Brooklyn Law School; Professor M. Gregg Bloche, Georgetown 
     University Law Center; Professor Michael C. Blumm, Lewis and 
     Clark Law School; Professor Carl T. Bogus, Roger Williams 
     University School of Law; Professor Cynthia Grant Bowman, 
     Northwestern University School of Law; Director of the 
     MacArthur Justice Center and Lecturer in Law, Locke Bowman, 
     University of Chicago Law School; Professor Scott Burris, 
     Temple University Beasley School of Law; Professor Donna 
     Byrne, William Mitchell College of Law; Professor Emily 
     Calhoun, University of Colorado School of Law.
         Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke Law School; Associate 
           Clinical Professor Kenneth D. Chestek, Indiana 
           University School of Law; Associate Professor Stephen 
           Clark, Albany Law School; Professor Marsha N. Cohen, 
           University of California Hastings College of the Law; 
           Professor Anthony D'Amato, Northwestern University 
           School of Law; Professor John L. Diamond, University of 
           California Hastings College of Law; Professor David R. 
           Dow, University of Houston Law Center; Professor Jean 
           M. Eggen, Widener University School of Law; Associate 
           Professor Christine Haight Farley, American University, 
           Washington College of Law; Associate Professor Ann E. 
           Freedman, Rutgers Law School--Camden; Professor Gerald 
           Frug, Harvard Law School; Professor Barry R. Furrow, 
           Widener University School of Law; Associate Clinical 
           Professor Craig Futterman, University of Chicago Law 
           School; Professor David Gelfand, Tulane University Law 
           School; Professor Phyllis Goldfarb, Boston College Law 
           School; Professor Lawrence Gostin, Georgetown 
           University Law Center; Professor Michael Gottesman, 
           Georgetown University Law Center.
         Professor Stephen E. Gottlieb, Albany Law School; 
           Professor Phoebe Haddon, Temple University Beasley 
           School of Law; Professor Jon D. Hanson, Harvard Law 
           School; Professor Douglas R. Heidenreich, William 
           Mitchell College of Law; Professor Kathy Hessler, Case 
           Western Reserve University School of Law; Professor 
           Eric S. Janus, William Mitchell College of Law; 
           Professor Sheri Lynn Johnson, Cornell Law School; 
           Professor David J. Jung, University of California 
           Hastings College of Law; Associate Professor Ken 
           Katkin, Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern 
           Kentucky Univ.; Professor David Kairys, Temple 
           University Beasley School of Law; Professor Kit 
           Kinports, University of Illinois School of Law; 
           Professor Martin A. Kotler, Widener University School 
           of Law; Professor Baily Kuklin, Brooklyn Law School; 
           Professor Arthur B. LiFrance, Lewis and Clark Law 
           School; Professor Sylvia A. Law, NYU School of Law.
         Professor Ronald Lasing, Lewis and Clark Law School; 
           Professor Robert Justin Lipkin, Widener University 
           School of Law; Professor Hugh C. Macgill, University of 
           Connecticut School of Law; Professor Mari J. Matsuda, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Associate Professor 
           Finbarr McCarthy, University Beasley School of Law; 
           Director (Retired Professor) Christine M. McDermott, 
           Randolph County Family Crisis Center, North Carolina; 
           Professor Joan S. Meier, George Washington University 
           Law School; Professor Naomi Mezey, Georgetown 
           University Law Center; Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia 
           Law School; Professor Dawn C. Nunziato, George 
           Washington University Law School; Professor Michael S. 
           Perlin, New York Law School; Clinical Professor Mark A. 
           Peters, Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark 
           College; Professor Mark C. Rahdert, Temple University 
           Beasley School of Law; Professor Denise Roy, William 
           Mitchell College of Law.
         Professor Joyce Saltalamachia, New York Law School; 
           Clinical Assistant Professor David A. Santacroce, 
           University of Michigan School of Law; Professor Niels 
           Schaumanm, William Mitchell College of Law; Professor 
           Margo Schlanger, Washington University School of Law; 
           Professor Marjorie M. Shultz, University of California 
           Boalt School of Law; Senior Lecturer Stephen E. Smith, 
           Northwestern University School of Law; Professor Peter 
           J. Smith, George Washington University Law School; 
           Professor Norman Stein, University of Alabama School of 
           Law; Professor Duncan Kennedy, Harvard Law School; 
           Professor Frank J. Vandall, Emory University School of 
           Law; Professor Kelly Weisberg, University of California 
           Hastings College of the Law; Professor Robin L. West, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Professor Christina 
           B. Whitman, University of Michigan School of Law; 
           Professor William M. Wiecek, Syracuse University 
           College of Law; Professor Bruce Winick, University of 
           Miami School of Law; Professor Stephen Wizner, Yale Law 
           School; Professor William Woodward, Temple University 
           Beasley School of Law.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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

[[Page 23274]]

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.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over S. 
397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The safe and lawful 
use of firearms is very important to me. When I was in the California 
State Assembly, I chaired the Public Safety Committee where I worked to 
pass sensible gun safety legislation and I have voted to ban assault 
weapons. I firmly believe we must pass sensible gun laws for the safety 
of all.
  The measure on the House floor today is intended to protect a 
manufacturer or seller of a firearm, from any legal liability stemming 
from the criminal or unlawful misuse of that firearm. The legislation 
also requires the immediate dismissal of pending lawsuits, even cases 
in which a court has found the suit to be meritorious. I fear this bill 
will deny justice to innocent victims of gun violence, and therefore I 
will oppose it.
  In recent years, dozens of individuals and municipalities have filed 
lawsuits against gun manufacturers for damages caused by gun violence. 
Such suits typically contend that gun makers knowingly provide weapons 
to irresponsible gun dealers, who then take advantage of gun sale 
loopholes to sell weapons to criminals. Some of these lawsuits by 
victims of gun violence have begun to expose how the gun industry's 
reckless, though not always technically criminal, sales tactics supply 
criminals with weapons.
  The gun lobby argues that S. 397 prohibits ``frivolous'' lawsuits, 
while allowing ``legitimate'' cases to proceed through the legal 
system. However, many legal experts confirm that this bill would give 
the gun industry sweeping immunity that no other industry has, and 
would bar many meritorious cases brought by victims of gun violence 
injured or killed by negligent gun sellers and manufacturers. The bill 
would even restrict many cases in which a product defect is at issue.
  S. 397 seeks to provide sweeping legal immunity to an industry that 
already enjoys exemptions from Federal health and safety regulations. 
It would dramatically re-write liability law for the direct benefit of 
a single industry.
  Furthermore, lawsuits brought on behalf of officers injured or killed 
in the line of duty by guns negligently sold by dealers, would be 
barred. If immunity for the gun industry is enacted, police officers 
who put their lives on the line every day to protect the public would 
have no legal recourse when they are harmed due to another's 
negligence.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not be providing this blanket immunity to the 
gun industry and I therefore oppose this measure.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that manufacturers or 
sellers of weapons should be liable for injuries, which result from the 
use of their products in criminal ways, simply because they produce and 
distribute their products.
  The manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms is legal in our 
Nation. And unless a manufacturer or seller of arms acts in some 
wrongful or criminal way, holding them liable effectively as insurers--
I believe is inappropriate and probably a violator of the 
Constitution's Commerce Clause.
  For example, I believe that the lawsuit pending in Federal court 
between the District of Columbia and Beretta and other gun 
manufacturers is an example of a claim that would effectively make gun 
manufacturers insurers for wrongful conduct. I expect the manufacturers 
to prevail in that case.
  However, the bill before us goes beyond this premise, and overreaches 
in key respects.
  First, I oppose the ``look back'' provision in this bill that 
requires the immediate dismissal of civil liability lawsuits against 
gun manufacturers that are pending on the date of enactment.
  As a matter of principle and as a matter of policy, I do not believe 
that Congress should pass legislation that interferes with on-going 
civil lawsuits. This is tantamount to changing the rules in the middle 
of the game, and I generally believe this approach is inappropriate.
  And second, I am troubled that, as the American Bar Association has 
pointed out, the legislation would preempt State product liability laws 
with a new, higher standard that would protect the gun industry even if 
it failed to implement safety devices that would prevent foreseeable 
injuries, so long as an injury or death suffered by a victim resulted 
when the gun was not ``used as intended.''
  Today, manufacturers must adopt feasible safety devices that would 
prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably misused, 
regardless of whether the uses are ``intended'' by the manufacturer, or 
whether the product ``fails'' or ``improperly'' functions.
  If perfected, I might well have voted for this bill. However, no 
amendments were allowed by the Republican Majority to answer the 
concerns I have expressed. Therefore, I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the original objective 
of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I am forced 
to oppose this legislation primarily because of unconstitutional gun 
control amendments added to the bill in the Senate.
  As a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States 
Constitution and an opponent of all Federal gun laws, I cannot support 
a bill that imposes new, unconstitutional gun controls on Americans. I 
believe that the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our 
constitutional liberties. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the 
Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1703), which repeals misguided 
Federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill.
  Senate amendments added two sections to S. 397 that impose 
unconstitutional controls on American gun owners and sellers.
  First, a section was added to the bill to outlaw any licensed gun 
importer, manufacturer, or dealer from selling, delivering, or 
transferring a handgun without a ``secure gun storage or safety 
device.'' Each and any violation of this requirement can result in a 
person being fined up to $2,500 or having his license revoked. This gun 
lock requirement amounts to the imposition of a new Federal tax on each 
handgun sale because gun buyers will be forced to pay the cost of the 
``secure gun storage or safety device'' that is required with a 
handgun, irrespective of if that device is desired. Further, the severe 
penalties for noncompliance--whether intentional or accidental--add yet 
more weight to the crippling regulations that hang over gun 
transactions in the United States.
  Second, a section was added to the bill to create draconian penalties 
for people who possess ``armor piercing'' bullets. Just like the 
Democratic Congress before it that passed the ``assault weapons'' ban, 
the Republican Congress is poised to give in to anti-gun rights scare 
tactics by selectively banning bullets. Instead of each gun owner being 
able to decide what ammunition he uses in his gun, Federal bureaucrats 
will make that decision. To recognize the threat such regulation places 
on gun owners, just consider that a gun without ammunition is nothing 
more than an expensive club. Regulating ammunition is the back door 
path to gun regulation.
  The ``armor piercing'' bullets restriction imposes a 15 years 
mandatory minimum sentence for just carrying or possessing such 
bullets--even without a gun--during or in ``relation to'' a crime of 
violence or drug trafficking. Given the wide scope of criminal laws and 
the fact that people are on occasion accused of crimes they did not 
commit, this provision promises to discourage many non-violent, law-
abiding individuals from possessing ammunition protected under the 
Second Amendment. Further, it does not take much imagination to see how 
such a provision could be used by an anti-gun prosecutor in the 
prosecution of an individual who used a gun in self defense, especially 
considering that use of such bullets to murder can result in a death 
sentence. In such instances, a defendant who exercised self defense may 
well accept a guilty plea bargain to avoid the severe enhanced 
penalties imposed under S. 397.
  I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives' 
leadership has taken the unusual step of bringing S. 397 to the floor 
for a vote without House members at least having an opportunity to vote 
on removing the gun control amendments. Instead of voting on a bill 
that contains the new gun control provisions, we should be considering 
H.R. 800, the House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion by gun 
control amendments. Notably, Gun Owners of America has written to House 
members to request that they oppose S. 397 and, instead, support H.R. 
800. Last month, I wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority 
Leader Tom DeLay, and Committee on the Judiciary Chairman James 
Sensenbrenner of my opposition to these anti-gun rights provisions in 
S. 397. While I am concerned about some of the federalism implications 
of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because it neither requires gun 
locks nor restricts gun owners' ammunition choices.
  With 258 sponsors and cosponsors, H.R. 800 would easily pass the 
House. The House

[[Page 23275]]

voting for H.R. 800 would allow the differences between H.R. 800 and S. 
397 to be reconciled in conference committee. In conference, every 
expectation would be that the new gun control provisions would be 
stripped from the legislation given that the original, unamended S. 397 
had 62 Senate sponsors and cosponsors--a filibuster proof majority--in 
the Senate.
  I regret that, under the guise of helping gun owners, the House of 
Representatives is today considering imposing new unconstitutional gun 
controls. I, thus, must oppose S. 397.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I hail from a State that respects the 
fundamental, individual right to own firearms granted to all Americans 
by the Second Amendment. This right, so essential to our liberty, is 
under assault by legal teams bent on destroying the firearms industry.
  They have tried and failed to accomplish this in the People's House 
and in State legislatures. Now they are using our courts, filing 
lawsuits with no legal merit, yet still incurring tremendous legal 
expense.
  These lawsuits rest on the misguided notion that those in the firearm 
industry are liable for the criminal misuse of their products. This is 
a dangerous precedent. It makes as much sense as suing car 
manufacturers for damage, injury or death caused by car thieves or joy 
riders.
  It is important to every firearm owner in the State of Wyoming that 
these lawsuits stop. If allowed to continue, firearms could become 
unavailable and unaffordable to the law-abiding citizen. The Protection 
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will stop these lawsuits, while 
protecting causes of action based on negligence, defective product and 
other valid claims.
  I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation. By doing so, we stand 
up for the constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to protect 
themselves, their homes, and their families.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 
397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. My opposition to 
the measure is based on my belief that it is overly expansive and 
overarching. This bill prohibits civil liability lawsuits against gun 
manufacturers from being brought in Federal or State court.
  My congressional district is beset by gun violence. I believe that 
gun owners, manufacturers and dealers must assume responsibility for 
the wanton gun violence that is being perpetrated as result of the 
willful neglect of gun dealers who cast blind eyes to illegal and 
irresponsible gun sales to minors, felons and potential terrorists. It 
appears to me that we are unwisely and gratuitously insulating gun 
manufacturers from bona fide civil lawsuits.
  This bill protects gun manufacturers but does absolutely nothing to 
protect innocent victims of gun violence. I am also concerned that we 
have prohibited suits from being brought in both Federal and State 
courts and that police officers shot in the line of duty are barred 
from filing lawsuits. For the families of fallen offices, their only 
recourse to obtain compensation for the loss of their loved one is 
through the civil lawsuit process.
  I contend that it is vital to preserve the right of citizens to seek 
redress through civil lawsuits for any harm they experience by virtue 
of the neglect and irresponsibility of gun manufacturers and dealers. I 
urge my colleagues to vote, ``no'' on S. 397, and to support the rights 
of potential victims of gun violence.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It is critical that the 
House once again pass this legislation in order to reduce the burden of 
unsubstantiated lawsuits and the infringement on our Second Amendment 
rights.
  When crimes are committed by a person using a firearm, I support 
tough sentencing guidelines as well as full and vigorous enforcement of 
all applicable laws. We must focus on the perpetrators of the crime, 
rather than frivolous lawsuits directed at gun manufacturers which will 
only restrict the rights of lawabiding citizens.
  The State of New Hampshire has a long history of protecting 
individual rights and liberties. For millions of Americans, and the 
many citizens of New Hampshire, firearms provide protection for 
individuals and their families. I stand in support of this legislation 
and I will work to see that the Second Amendment right of our citizens 
to protect themselves will not be infringed upon.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  Over the last few years, trial lawyers have filed suit against 
firearms manufacturers across the country in the hopes of bankrupting 
the industry. These frivolous lawsuits are often based on the dubious 
premise that gun manufacturers should be held liable for the actions of 
others who use their products in a criminal or unlawful manner.
  This abuse of the legal process demands strong Congressional action, 
and we are responding with this legislation. This bill will protect the 
firearms industry from lawsuits based on the criminal or unlawful 
third-party misuse of their products. This law is necessary to prevent 
a few state courts from undermining our Second Amendment rights 
guaranteed by the Constitution. Contrary to many rumors, this bill will 
not prevent legitimate victims from having their day in court for cases 
involving defective firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior 
by a gun maker or dealer, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to 
an irresponsible person.
  Mr. Speaker, while I have serious concerns about the trigger lock 
language added to this bill in the Senate, the Protection of Lawful 
Commerce in Arms Act is an important step in the right direction. The 
reality is that we need a bill to be signed into law, and this is our 
greatest opportunity to accomplish meaningful reform which benefits all 
lawful gun owners and enthusiasts. These irresponsible lawsuits 
seriously threaten the supply of guns and ammunition available for 
hunting, self-defense, collecting, competitive or recreational 
shooting, and other lawful activities, and it is time to put a stop to 
them.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because I don't believe that 
giving gun makers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations special 
exemption from lawsuits makes our streets any safer.
  If this law had been in place, the families of victims of the DC-area 
sniper could never have held negligent suppliers accountable. In 
September 2004, eight victims received a settlement from the dealer 
that ``lost'' the snipers' assault rifle from its inventory, along with 
at least 238 other guns. The victims' families also received a 
settlement from the manufacturer who negligently supplied the dealer 
despite its record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Most 
importantly, as part of the settlement, the manufacturer agreed to 
instruct its dealers of safer sales practices that should prevent other 
criminals from obtaining guns.
  Since the National Rifle Association owns about two-thirds of the 
Congress, guns have fewer safety regulations than teddy bears. The 
American people can't look to Congress to protect them, so they have no 
choice but to turn to the courts. It's no surprise that this last 
resort will now be shut down out of deference to the almighty gun 
industry.
  As if this blatant pandering to an industry responsible for 
widespread violence and mayhem isn't bad enough, this bill also 
violates the fundamental right of every American to have their day in 
court. As soon as the President signs this bill into law, Americans 
will be able to sue the manufacturer of any product except for guns for 
death, injury, and any other kind of negligence. Congress, at the 
behest of the NRA, will close the courthouse doors to gun victims.
  I vote ``no'' on this bill because no industry, certainly not the gun 
industry, should have the right to conduct their business without the 
oversight of the judicial system.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 
397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This resolution 
immunizes the gun industry--including manufacturers, distributors, 
dealers, or importers of firearms and ammunitions--from civil liability 
arising from the criminal and unlawful misuse of their products. 
Advocates of this bill believe that it is necessary to pass in order to 
prevent the rise of ``frivolous'' lawsuits against companies that 
manufacture and distribute firearms. Advocates say, the Second 
Amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of these companies to 
irresponsibly sell their products without any repercussions for the 
misuse of their product. I believe there is a delicate balance between 
the right to bear arms, a right provided by the Constitution, and the 
need to prevent gun violence. This bill, if passed into law, will 
unfairly shift the balance. Through the laws vested in the 
Constitution, every American has been given the responsibility to keep 
and bear arms, but this resolution will dismantle all progress that has 
been made toward the fight against crime.
  Each year more than 30,000 gun-related deaths occur; a third of these 
30,000 deaths are committed with malicious ``intent by customers of the 
arms industry who exploit their Second Amendment Right. Since 2000, we 
have witnessed a 9 percent increase in gun-related homicides. In 2003, 
firearms were used in over 365,000 cases of violent crime. Fifty 
percent of all the African American youngsters between the ages of 15 
and 19, who die, die from gun violence. When guns and ammunitions reach 
the wrong hands, we must be able to hold accountable the companies that 
put destructive weapons in the hands of these criminals.

[[Page 23276]]

  My dissent for this bill focuses around the lack of responsibility 
required by arms dealers. When the desired intent of a product is to 
fatally wound an object through legal or illegal means, there will 
always be the need of a high demand of accountability. For cases of gun 
violence in which the firearms industry should be held responsible, 
this resolution does not protect its victims. In past years, State and 
Federal Courts have found these types of cases to be grounded in such 
credible legal principles as negligence, product liability, and public 
nuisance. If this legislation passes, the high demand of accountability 
and liability required by firearms companies will drastically decrease. 
For these reasons, I cannot support the bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents have let 
me know they disagreed with my past vote against similar legislation. 
They asked me to take a closer look and consider voting for this bill 
today, and I promised to do so.
  However, after careful review of the bill and consideration of points 
raised by its supporters and opponents, I have concluded that I cannot 
in good conscience vote for it.
  I voted against similar legislation in the past because I was not 
convinced there was a need for Congress to take such action to restrict 
certain lawsuits against the manufacturers and sellers of firearms. And 
I still am not convinced that the potential adverse consequences of 
those lawsuits are so great that Congress should close the courthouse 
door to people who think they have valid claims.
  And, as in the past, I am particularly reluctant to support 
legislation that would go further than barring future lawsuits by 
requiring the immediate dismissal of cases under active consideration 
by the courts. It seems to me that this is a dangerous precedent for 
the legislative branch to undertake, and the courts are in a much 
better position than Congress to decide whether the people who have 
brought those pending cases have valid claims or whether their 
complaints are frivolous or malicious.
  It happens that this bill deals with lawsuits against firearms 
manufacturers. But this concern about changing the legal rules to 
prohibit further consideration of active cases (as opposed to pending 
ones) would be the same for similar lawsuits against the makers or 
sellers of other consumer products that are inherently dangerous, if 
not lethal, when misused--for example, automobiles and electronic 
devices.
  And, while the bill before us--which has already passed the Senate--
differs in some respects from versions we have considered before, it 
too would apply to pending cases.
  At the very least the House should have been able to debate and 
decide on possible changes to the bill. But that did not happen, 
because the Republican leadership insisted on bringing the bill to the 
floor under restrictive procedures that essentially barred any 
amendments from being offered. I strongly object to this way of 
considering such legislation.
  Most of the debate about this bill has been about its significance 
for firearms manufacturers--and, if the bill dealt only with 
manufacturers, I might have come to a different conclusion about the 
need for liability protection. But the provisions related to sellers or 
other distributors--provisions that are equally or more important--are 
another matter.
  I also think we should at least debate and consider whether reducing 
the deterrent effect of potential liability might increase the chance 
that firearms could knowingly or negligently be transferred to 
criminals or terrorists. I think the seriousness of this is illustrated 
by the report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicating 
that last year alone there were at last 56 times when people the 
federal government considered known or suspected terrorists attempted 
to purchase firearms.
  It's true that under current law, even actual--let alone suspected--
membership in a terrorist organization, by itself, is enough to bar 
someone from purchasing a firearm. But instead of considering a 
possible change to this part of current law, today we are debating 
whether the law should be changed to reduce, not strengthen, the legal 
deterrents to such purchases.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that litigation can be costly, and I am not in 
favor of frivolous lawsuits. Nor am I in favor of banning gun ownership 
or abolishing the domestic gun manufacturing industry. Earlier this 
year, for example, I voted against an amendment that would have banned 
the export of certain American firearms overseas. And since the House 
last considered similar legislation I have also undertaken a deeper 
review of Second Amendment concerns and my staff and I have met with 
thoughtful and enthusiastic Coloradans (like my good friend Rick 
Reeser) who feel differently about the implications and desirability of 
this legislation. I have also had many informative conversations with 
many Colorado sportsmen and women, including some of my staff who make 
a compelling case that gun ownership is not just a question of legal 
rights but also about respecting and preserving a critical component of 
individual liberty. I embrace this view and respect their concerns and 
acknowledge the need for a less divisive debate about the preserving 
Second Amendment rights.
  But, after a careful reading of the provisions of this legislation 
and the most objective review that I can make of the arguments for and 
against its enactment, I still think we in the Congress should leave it 
to the courts to decide which of the lawsuits covered by this bill are 
frivolous and which are not. For all these reasons, and especially 
because we were not even permitted to consider any changes, I cannot 
support this legislation.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my support to S. 397, the 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  I also commend Senator Larry Craig from Idaho on his leadership on 
this legislation, defending Americans' Second Amendment right to bear 
arms.
  The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397, is bipartisan, 
common-sense legislation that takes an important step toward preventing 
reckless lawsuits targeting the firearms industry. Such misguided 
claims against the legal manufacture and sale of firearms and 
ammunition are akin to suing the Postal Service or an envelope 
manufacturer over someone committing the crime of mail fraud--it just 
doesn't make sense. The bill provides protection for those in the 
firearms industry from lawsuits arising from the acts of people who 
criminally or unlawfully misuse their products. The bill preserves 
citizen access to firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, 
including hunting, self-defense, collecting and competitive or 
recreational shooting.
  I believe that manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition 
must be protected from restrictions on interstate or foreign commerce. 
In light of the concerted efforts by opponents of the Second Amendment 
to destroy the gun industry through frivolous lawsuits, it has become 
imperative that we protect the jobs and economic well-being of the 
thousands of people who work for manufacturers and sellers of firearms 
and ammunition. I find the idea of holding an industry liable for the 
criminal misuse of their legal products deplorable. Our nation cannot 
allow the innocent to pay for the dealings of the guilty, or we 
circumvent the very foundation of the rule of law. It is the 
individuals who commit violent crimes, not the makers of the means, who 
must take personal responsibility for their actions through the 
restitution and civil penalties affirmed by law. This should be the 
case whether or not a firearm was used to commit the crime.
  Without this legislation, further unfounded lawsuits against the gun 
industry will lead inevitably to an encroachment upon our Second 
Amendment rights. Congress must work diligently to reduce the level of 
political rhetoric surrounding gun control, protect the Second 
Amendment, and promote the role of personal responsibility in society.
  This bill is a key element of our effort to bring some sanity to 
what's become a thriving personal injury industry in this country. 
Americans understand that suing legitimate firearms manufacturers and 
dealers out of existence won't stop criminal gun violence. But trial 
lawyers are eager to cash in on the pain of victims, and criminals 
rarely have deep pockets. This puts the responsibility where it 
belongs.
  I joined my colleagues in the House in passing similar legislation 
during the 108th Congress. That unfortunately got held up in the 
Senate. I am hopeful we will take the opportunity today to pass this 
bill with no changes so it can go to the President's desk for a 
signature. This legislation is long overdue.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, once again we find ourselves here 
debating the scope of the Second Amendment and whether its purpose is 
to protect the sanctity of state militias or provide a fundamental 
right to individuals, irrespective of their relationship to state 
militias, to possess firearms. While this bill cites in its findings 
that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear 
arms, there has been a definitive resolution by the courts of just what 
right the Second Amendment protects.
  In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court wrote in 1939 that the 
``obvious purpose'' of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second 
Amendment was ``to assure the continuation and render possible the 
effectiveness'' of state militias and that the guarantee of that right 
``must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'' This 
language was a clear indication that the Second Amendment right to 
``bear arms'' guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective 
state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to 
own or possess weapons.

[[Page 23277]]

  Mr. Speaker, for more than sixty years following the Supreme Court's 
decision in Miller, there was little judicial debate regarding the 
scope of the Second amendment. In fact, virtually every federal appeals 
court has decided this issue and only one, the Fifth Circuit in United 
States v. Emerson, has endorsed the individual rights view. Since the 
Emerson opinion in 2001--which was joined by only two circuit court 
judges and actually upheld the gun law at issue--the individual rights 
view has been rejected by the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth 
Circuits. The First, Second, Third and Eighth Circuits also have issued 
definitive rulings rejecting the individual rights view.
  The First Circuit held that the second amendment applies only to 
firearms having a ``reasonable relationship to the preservation or 
efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' 1939 Miller case.
  In 1984, in the Second Circuit, the court cited Miller for the 
proposition that the right to possess a gun was ``not a fundamental 
right'' because the Second Amendment did not guarantee the right to 
keep and bear a weapon unless the evidence showed the firearm had some 
``reasonable relationship'' to the preservation or efficiency of a well 
regulated militia--U.S. v. Toner.
  In 1996, in the Third Circuit, defendant's possession of machine guns 
did not have a connection with militia-related activity required for 
second amendment protections to apply--U.S. v. Rybar.
  The Fourth Circuit, a 1995 case, stated that courts have consistently 
held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of 
keeping and bearing arms which bear a reasonable relationship to the 
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia--Love v. 
Pepersack.
  The Sixth Circuit, in 2000, held that the lower courts have uniformly 
held that the second amendment preserves a collective rather than an 
individual right--U.S. v. Napier.
  The Seventh Circuit, the second amendment establishes no right to 
possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play 
in maintaining a State militia. That is a 1999 case--Gillespie v. City 
of Indianapolis.
  The Eighth Circuit stated that the purpose of the second amendment is 
to restrain the Federal Government from regulating the possession of 
arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or 
efficiency of the militia. That is a 1992 case--U.S. v. Hale.
  The Ninth Circuit in 2003 stated that it is this collective rights 
model which provides the best interpretation of the second amendment--
Silveira v. Lockyer.
  The Tenth Circuit, a 1977 case, to apply the amendment so as to 
guarantee an appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which 
has not been shown to have any connection with the militia, merely 
because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be 
unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy--U.S. v. Oakes.
  The Eleventh Circuit, a 1997 case concerning motivating the creation 
of the second amendment, convinces us that the amendment was intended 
to protect only the use or protection of weapons reasonably related to 
a militia actively maintained and trained by the States--U.S. v. 
Wright. I believe these cases are evidence of the remarkable degree of 
judicial consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if my colleagues across the aisle want to 
amend the Constitution, they should do it by amendment rather than 
attempting to do it through findings.
  Mr, Speaker, this bill also contains a provision requiring a 
conviction before a defendant who has violated 18 U.S.C. 924(h) can be 
sued. Requiring a conviction before an offender can be sued for the 
civil consequences of his unlawful acts would constitute an 
extraordinary change in traditional civil liability standards. The 
public will remember that O.J. Simpson was found civilly liable for 
damages, even though he had been acquitted in criminal court. Moreover, 
such a requirement would create absurd results, based on what a 
prosecutor may decide to do in a particular case, and when he decides 
to do it. The prosecutor may choose not to prosecute a particular case 
at all, for various reasons. This would preclude a claim, regardless of 
how egregious the injuries or clear the liability. Or, even where the 
case is prosecuted, the prosecutor may decide to plea bargain by 
allowing a defendant who has unlawfully transferred a number guns to 
plead guilty to one transfer and drop the remainder. It would be absurd 
to allow one case to go forward and not others, depending on which case 
was technically pleaded. Of course, it is always possible that a case 
will be thrown out because of an unlawful search or seizure because of 
a coerced confession, or simply because the prosecutor is unable to 
obtain a conviction. And even where there is a conviction, the timing 
of the conviction, alone, may be dispositive of the claim, because 
there is nothing in the bill or the law which tolls the statute of 
limitations on a civil claim, pending a conviction. And there is 
nothing in the bill to deal with what happens if the conviction is 
reversed or appeal.
  Absent a conviction, the unlawful transfer still must be proven in 
order to pursue the case. This should be protection enough for someone 
who causes another harm by criminal conduct.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process 
rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks 
to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I submit the following list of cases supporting collective view for 
the Record.
       A Sampling of Court Decisions that Support the Militia 
     Interpretation of the Second Amendment from The Legal Action 
     Project.


                           u.S. SUPREME COURT

       U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
       Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980).


                         U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS

       U.S. v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004).
       U.S. v. Lippman, 369 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2004).
       U.S. v. Price, 328 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2003).
       U.S. v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2002).
       U.S. v. Lucero, 43 Fed. Appx. 299 (10th Cir. 2002).
       U.S. v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2002).
       Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, rehearing en banc 
     denied, 328 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2003).
       Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002).
       U.S. v. Twenty-Two Various Firearms, 38 Fed. Appx. 229 (6th 
     Cir. 2002).
       U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. 
     denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001).
       U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. 
     denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001).
       U.S. v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001).
       U.S. v. Hemmings, 258 F. 3d 587 (7th Cir. 2001).
       U.S. v. Hager, 22 Fed. Appx. 130 (4th Cir. 2001).
       Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 
     1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000).
       U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000).
       U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561 (10th Cir. 2000).
       U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 
     522 U.S. 1007 (1997).
       U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 
     522 U.S. 807 (1997).
       Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 
     U.S. 912 (1996).
       U.S. v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995).
       Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
     516 U.S. 813 (1995).
       U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir.1993).
       U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 
     507 U.S. 997 (1993).
       U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988).
       U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984).
       Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 
     1984).
       Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 
     1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
       U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 
     435 U.S. 926 (1978).
       U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977).
       U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. 
     denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976).
       U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 
     U.S. 948 (1976).
       U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974).
       Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), 
     cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973).
       U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973).
       Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 
     U.S. 1010 (1972).
       U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971).
       U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on 
     other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972).
       U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971).
       Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971).
       U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other 
     grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943).
       U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied 
     sub nom., Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943).


                      u.s. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS

       Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 
     2004).
       Blackburn v. Jansen, 241 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (D. Neb. 2003).
       Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. 
     Cal. 2001).
       Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 
     2000).
       U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000).
       U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
       U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff'd, 
     211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000).
       U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999).
       U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999).
       U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996).
       Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
       U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993).
       Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987).

[[Page 23278]]

       U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F. Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. 
     denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984).
       Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F. Supp. 198 
     (S.D. Tex. 1982).
       Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982).
       U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
       U.S. v. Gross, 313 F. Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd 
     on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971).


                              STATE COURTS

       Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993).
       State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989).
       U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 
     S.Ct. 193 (1987).
       Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 
     1984).
       Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983).
       City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio 
     App. 1983).
       State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982).
       In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980).
       State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979).
       Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).
       Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal 
     dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969).
       Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967).

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I am an original cosponsor 
of the House version of this legislation, H.R. 800.
  A lawsuit against a gun manufacturer simply for being a gun 
manufacturer has no business in American courts.
  I am proud that every court in our judicial system has agreed with 
that and has thrown out these frivolous lawsuits.
  However, in U.S. courts we have the American rule, where each side 
pays their own legal fees under normal circumstances, instead of the 
English rule, where the loser usually pays.
  Generally, I support the American rule because it is fairer to 
individuals seeking relief from large firms.
  Unfortunately the American rule can mean that frivolous lawsuits 
which have no chance of going anywhere still impose a terrible burden 
on parties.
  Some people in this country are politically opposed to the firearm 
industry and believe most firearms should be illegal or hard to obtain.
  So these folks do not have a problem spending non-profit money and 
public money on a losing lawsuit in pursuit of ideology.
  However, that is not fair to the firearm industry, which is not only 
completely legal, but has the right to own their product enshrined in 
the U.S. Constitution.
  Therefore, it is particularly bad that the firearm industry has had 
to pay $200 million to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits that 
have never, ever succeeded in court.
  S. 397 only protects legitimate businesses that comply with Federal, 
State and local firearm laws.
  The bill does not waive liability for actually defective products, 
breach of contract or warranty, or other causes that are not related to 
third-party criminal misuse of firearms.
  If we are going to sue firearm makers for armed robberies, why not go 
on and sue the auto maker who made the get-away car?
  The idea is absurd, but some groups and politicians want to punish 
firearm manufacturers for their very existence.
  As a result, we must pass S. 397 and send it to the President.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.''
  This bill is an attempt to carve out an exclusive liability 
exemption, and its vote on the floor today is a giveback to the gun 
industry at a significant cost to the American people.
  Under this bill, manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition 
will not be held accountable for even the most irresponsible 
distribution of weapons that kill innocent people, including police 
officers, children and bystanders of gang violence.
  While the wholesale prohibition against lawsuits may allow several 
exemptions, these exclusions overhaul years of legal negligence 
standards.
  I'm concerned that this bill for the gun industry sets an impractical 
legal standard for even the most reasonable litigation.
  In the Washington-area, we are particularly sensitive to gun 
violence. You may not all remember, but our nation was held captive for 
three weeks in October 2002 while two men systematically killed ten 
people and wounded three others with a sniper rifle obtained from an 
irresponsible gun dealer that ``lost'' over 200 other unaccounted for 
guns.
  The language in this bill is so restrictive that survivors of the 
victims would not have had any legal recourse against the company whose 
negligent business practices led to the deaths of their family.
  Under the bill, we are eliminating a powerful incentive for gun 
dealers to value accountability and keep guns out of the wrong hands. 
We are implicitly condoning their irresponsible behavior.
  I understand the desire to protect the American judicial system from 
what some people perceive as frivolous lawsuits. But gun manufacturers 
and sellers should not be able to write their own liability standard 
into law.
  We aren't debating a product that has an inconsequential impact on 
our nation.
  Almost 30,000 people in our country die from firearm injuries, 
murders, and suicides each year.
  According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 
as recently as 2002, 2,893 young people were murdered by firearms. That 
accounts for the second leading cause of death for young people under 
19 in the United States.
  Our economy even suffers from this senseless violence. From the loss 
of productivity, medical treatment and rehabilitation and legal costs, 
gun violence costs the U.S. at least $100 billion annually.
  Instead of putting forth a national plan to end this futile cycle of 
death, extending the ban on assault weapons, or even prohibiting people 
we know are on our own terrorist list from obtaining weapons, we are 
debating how to best shield the gun industry from accountability and 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate today that we are sending the wrong 
message to gun manufacturers and the worst of all possible messages to 
the public: We are not willing to put special interests aside to 
protect the American people.
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  As a gun owner, it troubles me that many interest groups and local 
municipalities have decided that the way to reduce gun violence is to 
put the manufacturers of firearms and firearm parts out of business 
through lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits. Their actions run counter to 
the main purpose of gun ownership: protection.
  The Second Amendment was not written as a mere exercise in 
constitutional thought. It had a practical purpose: First, to ensure 
that citizens would have the tools to protect their families and their 
homes and, second, to ensure that an armed militia could be called up 
to defend the country in emergencies.
  But these lawsuits, Mr. Speaker, have the potential of crippling the 
American firearms industry, in the same manner as the threat of medical 
liability has crippled the medical industry. Why would we want to go 
down that route? Why would we want to put firearms out of the reach of 
law-abiding citizens.
  S. 397, and H.R. 800, the companion legislation of which I was proud 
to be an original co-sponsor, would prohibit state and Federal lawsuits 
against the gun industry for deaths resulting from unlawful actions of 
the user.
  In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, these lawsuits are a threat to our 
hard-earned Second Amendment rights. It is entirely proper that we 
should prevent such unconstitutional actions. I commend the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Stearns, and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their hard 
work on this legislation, and I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 397, the 
Gun Manufacturers Liability Protection Act. Shielding gun 
manufacturers, dealers and distributors from liability is one of the 
most egregious forms of corporate welfare we've considered in this 
House all year.
  This is George Orwell legislation at its finest--all industries are 
equal, but some are more equal than others. If you sell beer to a 17-
year-old and he causes an accident, you can be held liable. But if you 
allow a 17-year-old to walk out of your store with a high powered 
rifle, don't worry. Congress has your back.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a hypothetical case. Last year the families 
of DC sniper victims settled for $2.5 million with Bull's Eye Shooter 
Supply and Bushmaster Firearms, because Bull's Eye allowed Lee Boyd 
Malvo to shoplift a military quality rifle--one of 233 guns they could 
not account for when investigated by the ATF. Some of my colleagues 
call this a frivolous lawsuit. I don't think there is anything 
frivolous about 233 missing guns.
  In July of this year we gift wrapped a provision in the Medical 
Malpractice Bill that shielded the pharmaceutical industry from 
liability on any drug that made it through the regular FDA approval 
process. Coincidentally, Merck Pharmaceuticals was at the same time 
facing multiple lawsuits tied to its misrepresentation of the dangers 
of the prescription drug Vioxx.
  Thanks to this Congress, Americans can continue to exercise their 
Constitutional right

[[Page 23279]]

to seek redress in the court system, unless it involves guns or drugs.
  I am gratified to see that this bill does include certain common-
sense provisions such as child safety locks and a ban on armor-piercing 
bullets. We fought hard for these ideas in the Clinton Administration 
and I urge my colleagues to resist any pressure to have them removed.
  Despite my support for these ideas I must vote no on the overall 
bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill denies Americans one of their most basic 
rights in order to provide special protections for a very special 
interest. I urge my colleagues to resist the gun lobby and defeat this 
bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to S. 397, the Gun 
Manufacturers Liability Protection Act. It is hard to imagine how 
people who have lived through the sniper experience in Washington, DC, 
and those who deal with potential terrorist acts in the United States 
would want to specifically weaken potential sanctions against people 
who abuse their business of selling firearms.
  This legislation would have given a pass for the infamous Tacoma, WA, 
gun dealer who ``lost'' more than 200 weapons, one of which ended up in 
the hands of the sniper who killed 11 people in Washington, DC. Why 
anyone would want to shield people for that sort of reckless and 
illegal behavior is mystifying and it is certainly not worthy of 
passage by the House of Representatives. Were it not for gun politics, 
this legislation would never have seen the light of day.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H.R. 800, the virtually 
identical House version of this legislation, I rise today to clear up 
any questions that might arise when trying to understand the intent of 
S. 397 and what its enactment would accomplish. The Protection of 
Lawful Coerce in Arms Act will eliminate predatory lawsuits that would 
otherwise cripple an entire industry.
  First, let me make two points about what the bill will not do. 
Nothing in the bill is intended to allow ``leap-frogging'' over the gun 
dealer to the manufacturer. The negligent entrustment provision applies 
specifically to the situation where a dealer knows or reasonably should 
know that a dangerous person is purchasing a firearm. When the 
manufacturer has done nothing but sell a legal, non-defective product 
according to the law, the negligent entrustment provision would not 
allow a plaintiff bypass of the gun dealer to get to the deeper pockets 
of the distributor or manufacturer.
  The amendment in the Senate offered by Senators Frist and Craig 
regarding ``administrative proceedings'' removed any confusion or 
misinformed rhetoric regarding the ``administrative proceedings'' 
section. This legislation will have no effect on the ability of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or any administrative agency 
to revoke licenses or otherwise engage in administrative proceedings to 
punish bad acting manufacturers, distributors, or dealers, or otherwise 
enforce the laws and regulations that apply to them. While I do not 
think the amendment was necessary because neither my bill nor S. 397 as 
introduced by Senator Craig did so, now there can be no question. ATF 
is authorized to begin enforcement proceedings when a violation of our 
Nation's Federal gun laws has occurred.
  I want the Congressional Record to clearly reflect some specific 
examples of the type of predatory lawsuits this bill will immediately 
stop. The bill was drafted to require courts where these cases are 
pending or filed to dismiss them on their own motions, what the lawyers 
call sua sponte. One of the primary purposes of this legislation is to 
not force defendants to incur the additional costs and delay of filing 
motions and arguing, and certainly not to go through costly trials and 
appeals of cases that the bill requires be dismissed forthwith. The 
predatory lawsuits that this bill will stop are an abuse of courts and 
law-abiding businesses and individuals.
  A clear cut example is the case of the City of New York v. Beretta 
USA Corp. et al, currently set for trial on November 27 in Federal 
court in Brooklyn, NY. The plaintiff has asserted that industry members 
have created a ``public nuisance.'' The lawful sale of a highly 
regulated product later misused by criminals is not a public nuisance, 
and has never been considered a public nuisance in American 
jurisprudence.
  One such suit that S. 397 will stop is the suit by the District of 
Columbia and nine individual plaintiffs who have sued members of the 
firearms industry under a District statute that, unbelievably, imposes 
automatic and absolute liability. The statute in question says a 
manufacturer is liable ``without regard to fault or proof of defect.'' 
There is also a case pending in Federal court in the District of 
Columbia in which a gun manufacturer is being sued under this very same 
statute--Charlot v. Bushmaster. The companies being sued under the 
District ``automatic'' liability law have no defense.
  Another example is the case of Ileto v. Glock, in Federal court in 
Los Angeles, CA, against a manufacturer and a distributor who are being 
sued over a criminal shooting. The facts, if you can believe it, are 
that the manufacturer, Glock, sold the pistol later criminally misused, 
to a Washington State police department and the distributor being sued 
never owned, sold, nor possessed the firearm that was criminally 
misused.
  Yet another example is the cases of Hernandez v. Kahr Arms and 
Maisonet v. Kahr Arms pending in State court in Massachusetts. Here a 
manufacturer, Kahr Arms, whose products are used by law enforcement 
across America, is being sued for a criminal shooting at a well-known 
gang hangout with a long history of drug use, drug dealing and 
violence. The criminal shooting was committed with an unfinished, but 
functioning firearm assembled from individual parts that were stolen 
from the factory over time by an ex-employee. Following the incident, 
James A. McNally of the ATF Boston Field Office told the local 
newspaper that theft from reputable gun manufacturers such as Kahr Arms 
is relatively rare. He went on to say, ``[Kahr Arms] is the victim. 
They're not the problem.''--Worcester Telegraph & Gazette at p. 1, 
March 18, 2000.
  There is also a pending suit against members of the firearms industry 
by the city of Gary, IN, even though the State of Indiana has itself 
passed a State law similar in purpose and intent to S. 397.
  In the days leading up to the Senate debate this summer lawyers from 
antigun interest groups rushed to the courthouse to file at least three 
such lawsuits, one in New York and two in Pennsylvania. There are 
reports that still more baseless lawsuits have been filed just this 
week.
  Congress is properly acting here under its Commerce Clause powers, as 
we have done many times in the past. We are also rightly concerned, as 
is the Department of Defense, that if these lawsuits succeed in driving 
gun manufacturers out of business, the national defense will be harmed. 
The same is true for our homeland security, as these same companies 
make the firearms used by law enforcement. It is our obligation to take 
steps to protect a vital component of our national defense 
infrastructure--America's ``Arsenal for Democracy.''
  The Constitution imposes upon Congress the duty to protect the second 
amendment and the right it provides to individuals to ``keep and bear 
arms.'' This right will be a mere illusion if firearms manufacturers 
are driven out of business by predatory lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, let me continue to be clear here as to the purpose and 
intent of this bill so that creative lawyers cannot later try to come 
up with a creative argument to wiggle around this bill.
  For instance, the intent of Congress and this bill cannot be evaded 
or avoided by, for example, claiming that a public nuisance suit 
against manufacturers or sellers is based on criminals who unlawfully 
or criminally possess firearms but who may have not discharged them in 
the commission of a crime. In other words, as the author of this 
legislation, I want my colleagues and our fellow Americans to 
understand that, under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 
``Qualified Civil Liability Action'' covers criminal/unlawful 
possession, that includes, as used in the act, ``misuse means and 
includes possession''.
  I would also like to use this opportunity to clear up some other 
concerns and misunderstandings. Some have asked, ``Does the language in 
section 5 create new civil liability for a gun owner, if the person 
does not use a `secure gun storage or safety device' and the person's 
gun is stolen and misused?'' I would say quite forcefully that the 
answer is a resounding ``No.'' The fact is, there are almost no cases 
finding gun owners liable for misuse of stolen guns. Both the theft and 
the later crime are ``superseding acts'' that ``break the chain'' of 
causation under traditional tort law.
  I would tell my colleagues that the only way section 5 could create 
liability would be if a court thought it created a new duty or a new 
standard of care for gun owners. However, the language specifically 
states that it does not ``create a cause of action against any Federal 
firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability [or] 
establish any standard of care.''
  Finally, compliance or noncompliance could not even be used as 
evidence, except against a dealer who failed to sell the required 
locks, or by a gun owner who wanted to present his use of a safety 
device as a defense against a civil suit. On that point, section 5 
provides a new defense, not a new line of attack.
  The purpose of the liability protection language in section 5 is to 
address gun owners' concern that the ``secure gun storage or safety

[[Page 23280]]

device'' requirement would expose them to a new kind of lawsuits. The 
language neither creates nor eliminates liability for gun owners who 
use safety devices; in effect, it leaves the common law rules unchanged 
for those gun owners.
  If individual gun owners' liability for stolen guns becomes a major 
national issue like the suits against the industry, it could be the 
subject of additional legislation. The Indiana legislature changed 
Indiana law to prevent exactly this type of lawsuit after a court 
decision opened that door.
  Mr. Speaker, I have made these remarks to ensure that anyone trying 
to evade the letter and spirit of this legislation will have as little 
``wiggle room'' as possible. It is my hope that I have done just that.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 397, the 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  I am an original cosponsor of the House version of this legislation 
because I do not believe that licensed gun manufacturers and merchants 
should be held legally responsible for the unlawful use of their lawful 
products. Continuing to allow these frivolous lawsuits could set a 
dangerous precedent for future lawsuits affecting many other industries 
across the nation. By passing this similar Senate bill, we will prevent 
state courts from bankrupting the national firearms industry and 
undermining all citizens' constitutional right to bear arms.
  Tort law rests upon a foundation of individual responsibility where a 
product may not be defined as defective unless there is something wrong 
with the product, rather than with the product's user. It is ridiculous 
to allow such lawsuits to clog our courtrooms and hinder those with 
valid claims from receiving justice.
  Today, this Congress has the opportunity to address unfounded 
lawsuits and guard a legal and law-abiding industry. We should pass 
this legislation to protect the rights of citizens who own and operate 
firearms in a legal manner, and to free up our courtrooms for those 
legitimately harmed by defective products.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible legislation and set a 
precedent of respect for an industry which has done nothing wrong. We 
should hold individuals responsible for their crime, not the product 
manufacturer.
  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.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I voted against S. 397, the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. After careful consideration off the bill 
and its impact on the citizens of North Carolina and the United States, 
I determined that it would unacceptably infringe on their 
constitutional right to legal redress in our Nation's courts, as well 
as subvert North Carolina law, which already prohibits frivolous 
lawsuits against the firearms industry.
  Although I voted in favor of similar legislation in the 108th 
Congress, S. 397 is a much different bill. This bill extends 
unprecedented immunity to many groups beyond federally licensed 
firearms dealers and manufacturers, and it sets the bar of proof so 
high as to prohibit meritorious suits against unscrupulous dealers and 
manufacturers. This bill allows the firearms industry to put profits 
ahead of safety; under this bill manufacturers do not have to ensure 
that the dealers and wholesalers to whom they sell weapons are acting 
in good faith and within the parameters of the law. Law-abiding gun 
owners do not want more gun control laws. What we need is more vigorous 
enforcement of the gun laws that are already on the books.
  As a lifelong gun owner, I take seriously my commitment to upholding 
the Constitution and our Second Amendment right to bear arms. I am also 
committed to the right of individuals to freedom and safety, as well as 
their day in court, and this bill would subvert those rights.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 397, the 
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I believe this bill unfairly 
grants the gun industry immunity and takes away an individual's or 
state's ability to hold gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and gun trade 
associations accountable for negligence and product liability standards 
that apply to other industries. The bill perpetuates the gun industry's 
disregard for public safety and holds up their ``see-no-evil, hear-no-
evil, speak-no-evil'' approach to gun manufacturing and distribution.
  My opposition to S. 397 is an effort to crack down on negligent gun 
companies whose sole interest is making money even when it is at the 
expense of innocent lives and law enforcement. This bill would void a 
number of pending cases around the country which seek to hold the gun 
industry accountable for its actions. That includes cases brought 
against the gun industry by the City of Chicago and Cook County on 
behalf of victims of a shooting rampage a few years ago. That one 
tragic incident killed Ricky Byrdsong and injured others in our 
community. Those cases charge that the gun industry causes a public 
nuisance by being negligent in gun sales practices, particularly by 
making them available to minors and others who are banned from owning 
guns. This bill takes us backwards and gives immunity to the very 
industry that has the power to regulate the manufacturing and 
distribution of its products. One death by a handgun is too many. But 
when 647 people are murdered by guns in one year in just one city, as 
was the case in Chicago in 2002, now is not the time to give immunity 
to the gun industry.
  Although I oppose S. 397, I support an amendment that was added to 
this bill before it passed in the Senate. The amendment offered by 
Senator Kohl draws its provisions from the Child Safety Lock Act. It 
would prohibit the sale, delivery, or transfer by a licensed importer, 
manufacturer, or dealer of a handgun to anyone who does not have a 
secure gun storage or safety device. Child-safety locks cost as little 
as $10 and could save lives if sold with firearm. In fact, the Illinois 
House of Representatives passed a bill this year that will require gun 
dealers to sell child-safety locks with every handgun, to help prevent 
children from shooting themselves or others. This is important because 
our children possess the physical strength to accidentally fire a gun. 
According to the Illinois Council against Handgun Violence, 25 percent 
of 3- to 4-year-olds, 70 percent of 5- to 6-year-olds, and 90 percent 
of 7- to 8-year-olds can fire most handguns. The American Bar 
association believes that a locking device to prevent accidental firing 
should be a standard for the gun industry as seat belts are for the car 
industry. I support this amendment, and I hope it is enacted.
  S. 397 would strip away the legal rights of gun violence victims, 
including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress 
against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers. That is why the 
American Trial Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association, as 
well as law enforcement officers oppose this bill. As it is, guns are 
one of the few consumer products that are exempt from health and safety 
regulations. Therefore, litigation is the last opportunity for victims 
of firearm violence to hold the gun industry accountable when it acts 
negligently or recklessly. This bill would protect the gun industry at 
the expense of gun violence victims. We must not let the gun industry 
off the hook. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. 397.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 493, the Senate bill is considered read 
and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.

[[Page 23281]]

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of S. 397 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
the motion to instruct on H.R. 2744.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 283, 
nays 144, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 534]

                               YEAS--283

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--144

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boswell
     Davis (FL)
     DeLay
     Keller
     Musgrave
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  1153

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mr. DICKS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, 
and Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 534 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________