Date: 2003-04-09
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. H.R. )036. the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. seeks 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 product by others. The bill makes certain exceptions. however. to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers. sellers. distributors. and importers. For example. it allows a lawsuit to proceed in case of negligence per so or negligent entrustment. It also allows lawsuits for victims in certain cases where the gun seller or manufacturer knowingly or willingly broke State or Federal law. My amendment would be one of the smaller exceptions to the ban on lawsuits. It would essentially do more than require gun sellers or manufacturers to obey the law that already exists. C] 1330 Section 922 of title XVIII of the U.S. Code establishes that it is unlawful for any person to sell guns or ammunition to someone who uses or is addicted to illegal drugs or who has been adjudicated as a mental defective. Later on. the same section makes it illegal for drug users or abusers or persons with adjudicated mental problems to ship. possess or receive guns or ammunition that have been in interstate commerce. This makes sense. Congress has decided that there are certain people who should not have access to firearms. and these are the two categories of people who are restricted. Congress further decided that the responsibility for this restriction is on both the buyer and the seller. If the gun sellers and manufacturers are not checking to be sure that they do not sell guns to people with drug or mental problems. then how can we keep the guns out of their hands? That is why the U.S. Code specifically prohibits both the sale and the purchase. I just want the gun sellers to do the proper background checks. If they do not and it turns out they sold weapons or ammunition to a person in one of those categories. then they should not have the benefit of immunity from the court system. As a matter of public policy. we should most definitely provide victims with an opportunity to take their case to court. and we should allow judges the opportunity to decide if what the gun seller did was a violation of the law. Last fall. when there were suspicions that the Beltway sniper might have had a mental illness. the House rapidly passed a bill to enforce the alreadyexisting law that requires the FBI to list any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective on the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. It is important to note that the bill did not create this requirement. rather. it sought to provide incentive grants to encourage the use of it. That bill unfortunately did not pass the Senate. but that does not change the fact that this requirement already exists. If we are intent on requiring that the information be listed in the system. and if we say that gun sellers must do background checks. then how can we go wrong by holding them liable if they fail to do the. background check? Having already mentioned some of my opposition to this bill. and having tried to correct one of the many. many problems with it. I would like to talk about the egregious manner the Majority has used in moving this bill through the House. This is a fairly partisan bill. which went through a very partisan Committee. the Judiciary Committee. No hearings were held at Full Committee. Essentially. no markup occurred either. Technically. the Committee met and we started debate on what should have been 1015 amendments. The first one was offered and withdrawn. Shortly after we began discussing the second one. offered by Mr. Watt. the Majority called the previous question. And with that. our socalled democratic debate on an important piece of legislation ended. The Majority has since made claims that they cut off debate because no amendments were at the desk. This is patently untrue. As I said. and as the transcript from that markup shows. we were in the MIDDLE of the debate on an amendment when the previous question was called. I realize that the Majority wouldnt have liked a lot of our amendments. in which case they would have had the freedom to vote against then. But to not even allow debate on a topic of such divergent opinions Is a disgrace. Were talking about a bill that includes findings that have no basis in fact or law. A bill that makes sweeping changes to liability. thus cutting off legitimate victims access to the court system. A bill that rewards certain shoddy gun dealers with the same Immunity that it gives to honest manufacturers who have worked diligently to improve their products. That appalling markup happened last Thursday. Now here we are today. less than a week later. debating the bill on the Floor. But one again. a true democratic effort has been thwarted. because the Majority has only permitted us five amendments. Five amendments. Again. Im sure that the Majority didnt like all of the amendments we offered. But that doesnt mean they are nongermane. And its no reason to cut off debate. If thats going to be the basis for how we run this body. then we should stop claiming to be a democracy. And. frankly. the amendments allowed today dont Include all of the "heavy" amendments we offered. Lets be honest--my amendment has a much smaller impact than some of the other ones offered today. I think it represents an important change. but I also think there were a whole host of other important changes that could have been madehad we had a full markup. or hadthe Rule been an open one. I am shocked by the complete disregard to Majority has demonstrated for the democratic process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist this kind of disintegration of our free speech and our democratic process. Otherwise. the democratic ideals our troops are fighting for In the Middle East may as well be meaningless. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance * of my time.