[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 4432]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     THE GUN INDUSTRY IMMUNITY BILL

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed to see the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act reintroduced. I supported the successful 
effort to defeat the gun industry immunity legislation during the 108th 
Congress and I continue to oppose the legislation.
  The misnamed ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'' would 
rewrite well-accepted principles of liability law, providing the gun 
industry legal protections not enjoyed by other industries. In 
addition, this bill would set a dangerous precedent by terminating a 
wide range of pending and prospective civil cases against members of 
the gun industry. It would give a single industry broad immunity from 
civil liability and deprive many victims of gun violence with 
legitimate cases of their day in court.
  While most gun dealers and manufacturers conduct their business 
responsibly, this gun industry immunity legislation would provide 
protection from liability even in cases where gross negligence or 
recklessness lead to someone being injured or killed.
  The reintroduction of this bill comes after the Supreme Court 
recently allowed a civil suit against members of the gun industry to 
progress in California. Reportedly, the plaintiffs in this case allege 
that the gun manufacturer being sued distributed guns to dealers who 
were likely to sell them illegally or through largely unregulated gun 
shows. Judge Richard Paez of the Ninth Circuit wrote of this case: The 
social value of manufacturing and distributing guns without taking 
basic steps to prevent these guns from reaching illegal purchasers and 
possessors cannot outweigh the public interest in keeping the guns out 
of the hands of those who in turn use them in crimes.
  Last year, in a settlement that marked victory for the 2002 
Washington, DC, area sniper shooting victims, Bushmaster Firearms, 
manufacturer of the XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper attacks, 
agreed to pay $550,000 in damages for negligence leading to criminal 
violence in connection with the shooting spree.
  According to reports, Bushmaster continued to sell firearms, 
including the XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper shootings, to 
Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, even after several ATF audits 
documented the dealer's inability to responsibly account for its 
inventory of weapons. Reports indicate that 238 guns had gone missing 
from Bull's Eye's inventory and over 50 had been traced to criminal 
acts since 1997. The victims of the sniper shootings would have lost 
their ability to sue Bushmaster Firearms and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply 
had the gun industry immunity bill become law during the 108th 
Congress.
  If it is enacted, this bill would substantially weaken the legal 
rights of gun violence victims. In addition, other industries will 
almost certainly line up for similar protections. This is unwise 
legislation and it should not be adopted.

                          ____________________