Date: 2005-10-20
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

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 -utting 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 socalled "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 uslook 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 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 XM15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle. The rifle came from Bulls 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 yhars 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 afld 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. Re: Law Enforcement Opposition to S. 397.