Washington, D.C. - Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) released the following statement today on S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which was passed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and misguided bill that would exempt gun dealers from liability even if they negligently sell weapons to criminals.
It is particularly distressing that we are taking up this bill at this time. It was just three years ago this month when the community that I represent was terrorized by two snipers, who obtained weapons from a negligent gun dealer who was later shut down by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by how some people believe that the name given to a bill will somehow fool the American people about what the bill actually does. This bill is entitled the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” But what it actually does is protect those gun dealers who are wrongfully selling weapons to criminals. How does it do that? It lowers the legal standards of care that gun dealers must now exercise to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.
As a result, this bill will make it easier for criminals to get weapons and it will ensure that the irresponsible gun dealers who put guns into the hands of criminals will not be held responsible. It is a sad day in this body when the “special interests” exert such influence that they are able to convince the Congress to strip innocent victims of their rights and instead extend protection to unscrupulous dealers who put guns into the hands of criminals.
Proponents of this bill will tell you that most gun dealers are honest and law abiding. I agree. In fact, the ATF indicates that only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for nearly 60% of the guns that are traced to crimes. So if most gun dealers are honorable then why do they need protection? They don’t. The real beneficiaries of the bill are the disreputable dealers – the bad apples.
The proponents of this bill will tell you that the bill is intended to only stop “frivolous lawsuits.” This notion has been soundly rejected by victims’ advocates across the country. Such a notion is an insult to the victims who seek redress against negligent dealers.
Let us focus for a moment on the victims. At a time when more than 30,000 gun deaths occur each year, shouldn’t we be trying to protect them?
Let us for a moment examine some actual cases.
SNIPER CASE
Anyone who lived in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area in 2002 will recall that in October of that year snipers terrified the surrounding community, leaving carnage in their wake ---gunning down people who were shopping, pumping gas and cutting their grass and a child who was going to school. Before they were caught they were responsible for killing ten people and wounding three.
These attacks were carried out with a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle. The rifle came from Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington – a store with an extensive history of firearms violations and which had not reported the rifle as missing, as required by federal law. According to 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 (Hong Im Ballenger, Sonny Buchanan, Jr., Linda Franklin, Conrad Johnson, Sarah Ramos and Prem Kumar Walekar) as well as 2 victims who survived (Benny Oberoi and 13-year-old Iran Brown) filed a suit for restitution for their loss and injuries against Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply and Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. The victims of this heinous crime spree received a $2.5 million settlement. If this bill had been law, then these victims and their families would have received nothing.
POLICE SHOOTING
In June of 2004, two former New Jersey police officers, Ken McGuire and Dave Lemongello, were shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer. These two officers received a $1 million settlement for the negligence of this dealer. This dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other handguns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun “trafficker.” If this bill had been law, then this case would have been dismissed and justice for these two officers would have been denied. As a result many law enforcement officers and organizations have written a letter opposing this bill, a copy of which I would like to insert in the Record. Shouldn’t we be trying to create additional incentives to improve their business practices?
Whatever happened to the notion of protecting the victims?
This bill does precisely the opposite by providing a shield to an industry that should exercise a standard of care that is equal to, if not greater than, other industries that do not sell dangerous products.
It is inconceivable to me that the “special interests” have such a stronghold over this Congress that, at the behest of the gun lobby, we are actually considering a bill that will provide immunity that no other industry enjoys at the expense of the victim. This bill will victimize the victim by shutting the courthouse door in its face while unscrupulous gun dealers prosper under its protection.
In the interests of truth in advertising, we should at least change the bill’s title to more accurately reflect what it really does. This bill should be renamed “The Protection Of Negligent Gun Dealers Act.”