[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES, NOT THE GUN INDUSTRY

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, it has been reported that the Senate may 
consider the misnamed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the 
near future. I was pleased that this legislation was defeated during 
the 108th Congress, and I continue to oppose its passage.
  This bill would rewrite well-accepted principles of liability law, 
providing the gun industry legal protections not enjoyed by other 
industries. It would grant broad immunity from liability even in cases 
where gross negligence or recklessness led to someone being injured or 
killed. Enactment of this special interest legislation for the gun 
industry would also lead to the termination of a wide range of pending 
and prospective civil cases, depriving gun violence victims with 
legitimate cases of their day in court.
  It would be all the more irresponsible for the Senate to pass the gun 
industry immunity legislation while also continuing to ignore many gun 
safety issues that are critically important to the law enforcement 
community. Recent editorials in major newspapers around the country 
have highlighted Congress' inability to enact common sense gun safety 
legislation. An editorial from Monday's edition of the Los Angeles 
Times stated: Over the last four years, the president and his 
congressional allies have repudiated or quietly eviscerated key gun 
laws and regulations. Now they are poised to shield firearms makers and 
sellers from nearly all damage claims when their products kill or maim.
  Thus far, Congress has failed to act to reauthorize the assault 
weapons ban that expired on September 13, 2004. This inaction allowed 
criminals and terrorists potential easy access to many of the most 
powerful and deadly firearms manufactured. In addition, Congress has 
failed to close a loophole that allows individuals on terrorist watch 
lists to buy these weapons and has failed to pass legislation that 
would, at the very least, require a background check for individuals 
attempting to buy the previously banned assault weapons at gun shows.
  Rather than considering a bill to protect members of the gun industry 
from liability, we should help protect our families and communities by 
addressing the loopholes that potentially allow known and suspected 
terrorists to legally purchase military style firearms within our own 
borders. I again urge my colleagues to take up and pass common sense 
gun safety legislation that will address these loopholes and the 
threats they pose.
  I ask unanimous consent that the April 11, 2005 Los Angeles Times 
editorial titled ``Remember Gun Control?'' be printed in the 
Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 11, 2005]

                         Remember Gun Control?

       After four years of George W. Bush, the notions that some 
     people might be too dangerous or unstable to trust with a 
     firearm or that assault weapons do not belong in civilized 
     society are deader than a wild turkey in hunting season.
       During Bush's first campaign, a National Rifle Assn. leader 
     quipped, ``If we win, we'll have a president where we work 
     out of their office.'' How right he was.
       Over the last four years, the president and his 
     congressional allies have repudiated or quietly eviscerated 
     key gun laws and regulations. Now they are poised to shield 
     firearms makers and sellers from nearly all damage claims 
     when their products kill or maim. Not only is this a gift no 
     other industry enjoys, it's a truly bad idea that even gun 
     owners have reason to oppose.
       Last year, Republican congressional leaders simply ran out 
     the clock on the 10-year-old federal assault gun ban, 
     refusing to even call a vote on renewing it despite steady 
     popular support for the law. Bush, who once claimed that he 
     supported the ban, refused to make so much as a phone call to 
     his House or Senate allies to keep it alive. With it died the 
     ban on domestically made ammunition clips with more than 10 
     rounds, a boon for any disgruntled employee, terrorist or 
     high school student who wants to mow down a crowd. The 
     president also signed a bill that requires the destruction 
     within 24 hours of all records from background checks of gun 
     buyers. And Congress required the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives to keep secret the data that tracks 
     weapons used in crimes.
       Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office study 
     examining FBI and state background-check records found that 
     35 people whose names appeared on terrorism watch lists were 
     able to buy a gun. Incredibly, a would-be buyer's presence on 
     a watch list does not disqualify him or her from buying a 
     firearm. Because background-check data now must be promptly 
     destroyed, it is impossible to know how many more terrorism 
     suspects might be lawfully armed.
       The immunity bill, introduced by Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-
     Idaho) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), would protect gun 
     manufacturers and sellers from damage suits by victims of gun 
     violence. It would even block injury suits from gun owners. 
     That means gun owners can't sue if poorly made handguns 
     explode in their hands or fire unintentionally. In many 
     instances, the bill would shield gun dealers who allow 
     criminals to buy a firearm, by severely weakening the ATF's 
     ability to shut down unscrupulous dealers.
       This reckless measure, long on the NRA's wish list, has 
     come before Congress before, but enough lawmakers balked. 
     This time, emboldened by last November's GOP victories, there 
     looks to be less resistance. Senate Majority Leader Bill 
     Frist (R-Tenn.) says he's ready to call for a floor vote any 
     time. Unless voters speak up.

                          ____________________