Liberal Democrats Threaten Filibuster of Gun Suit Bill

Liberal Democrats Threaten Filibuster of Gun Suit Bill

CNSNews and NewsMax.com
Thursday May 15, 2003

Capitol Hill -- Six liberal Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster a bill that would prohibit lawsuits against gun makers, dealers, sellers and importers for the illegal actions of criminals who misuse their products.

An identical bill blocking such suits has already passed the House of Representatives by a two-to-one vote, and the Senate proposal already had 52 cosponsors when it was introduced.

"We're going to work and do all we can to make sure that this legislation does not become law," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) warned.

"We're preparing for the possibility of a filibuster," he added. "I'm not sure we have 41 votes yet. I am sure that they don't have 60 votes yet."

Reed and other opponents claim the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 659).would make it all but impossible to sue a gun manufacturer, distributor, dealer or importer regardless of what rules, regulations or laws they violate.

"I particularly want to thank my colleagues for joining me here today as we stand up in opposition to unprecedented legislation that would give the gun industry immunity from civil liability," Reed said.

His colleague, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), echoed that characterization of the bill.

"If this legislation passes, a family could go to court over defects in a toy gun but not a real gun," Mikulski claimed.

"This bill, with narrow exceptions, would essentially give the gun industry blanket immunity from civil liability cases," added Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

The proposal is also opposed by Senate Democrats Jon Corzine (N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.).

"The lawsuits that would be barred by this bill include product liability and unsafe gun design cases, negligent distribution and deceptive marketing," Feinstein added.

Supporters of the bill merely point to its language in response.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act specifically lists the types of lawsuits that would not be prohibited, including those for:

physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a design or manufacturing defect of the gun [product liability], when used as intended;

negligence, including negligently distributing a gun to someone the seller knew or should have known was likely to and did use the gun "in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury;" and

willfully violating state or federal law regulating the sale or marketing of a gun, if that violation was the cause of the injury for which relief is sought.

In fact, the only lawsuits not allowed by the legislation are those "brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a [gun], or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a [gun]" by the recipient or any third party. [Emphasis added.]

Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, is not surprised by what he called the senators' "misrepresentation" of the bill.

"The senators have either not read the proposed legislation, or they are intentionally misleading the American people about this common sense measure," Novin said. "Given Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer's disdain for the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter."

Many Second Amendment supporters believe the lawsuits that would be banned under the proposal - filed against gun makers rather than the criminals who misuse their products or against gun dealers rather than private citizens who leave their firearms accessible to children - are an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry, imposing by default the gun ban on Americans that the senators have tried but been unable to achieve through legislation.

Noting that there has been a flurry of such lawsuits whose sole aim has been to bankrupt the gun industry, supporters of the bill explained that at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gunmakers since 1998, with many claiming that manufacturers allowed weapons to reach criminals because of irresponsible marketing, the Times reported.,

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist told the Washington Times that the bill is aimed at protecting legal manufacturers from being held responsible for the illegal actions of criminals. "It doesn't protect those who break state or federal laws," he said. "It doesn't close the door to anyone" filing claims against wrongdoers.

Passing the gun manufacturers' liability bill was the NRA's top legislative priority this year, Cox explained. The liability bill is one of a few gun-related issues to arise in a Congress where gun-control advocates, faced with a Republican president and a GOP-controlled House and Senate, are on the defensive.

On another gun issue, the Times notes that President Bush has given his "qualified support for extending the 10-year ban on assault weapons enacted in a 1994 law,' but House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has warned Democrats they would not have the votes in the House for any attempt to expand the weapons listed under the ban.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Guns/Gun Control

Editor's note:
Discover and use the CIA’s secrets Click Here Now