PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his unwavering faithfulness to the Constitution and upholding his oath as a Senator, as a Member of this body.
The Bill of Rights is important to us, and I rise today in support of that Bill of Rights and, in particular, the second amendment. Not only do I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, I exercise that right personally as a gun owner. I stand on behalf of the people of Oklahoma who adamantly believe in the second amendment and the right to carry arms and against the attack on that right by the frivolous lawsuits that have come about of late.
We have seen many attempts to curtail the second amendment. Nearly a decade ago anti-gun activists tried to limit the right of law-abiding citizens under the banner of ``terrorism'' legislation by slipping in anti-gun provisions.
In another line of attack, the anti-gun lobby responded to decreasing enthusiasm for limiting handguns by promoting a new form of gun control--a cosmetic ban on guns labeled with the inflammatory title ``assault weapons.'' While that ban expired in 2004, we will likely see Members of this body attempt to add a renewal and expansion of that ban on this bill today.
Now anti-gun activists have found another way to constrict the right to bear arms and attack the Bill of Rights and attack the Constitution, and that is through frivolous litigation. They have not succeeded in jailing thousands of law-abiding Americans for having guns, or making the registration and purchase process so onerous that nobody bothers to buy a gun. They have failed to get their cosmetic weapons ban renewed. So now they must attack the arms industry financially through lawsuits--frivolous lawsuits, I might say.
This is why we are here today--to put a stop to the unmeritorious litigation that threatens to bankrupt a vital industry in this country.
As an important aside, I strongly believe it is important that we not write legislation that provides immunity for an industry that knowingly harms consumers.
It is also important that those who commit crimes, with or without the use of firearms, should be punished for their actions. I have always been a strong supporter of tough crime legislation. However, make no mistake, the lawsuits that will be prohibited under this legislation are intended to drive the gun industry out of business. With no gun industry, there is no second amendment right because there is no supply.
These lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers are not directed at perpetrators of crime. Instead, they are part of a stealth effort to limit gun ownership, and I oppose any such effort adamantly.
Anti-gun activists have failed to advance their agenda at the ballot box. They failed to advance their agenda in the legislatures. Therefore, they are hoping these cases will be brought before sympathetic activist judges--activist judges--who will determine by judicial fiat that the arms industry is responsible for the action of third parties.
Additionally, trial lawyers are working hand in glove with the anti-gun activists because they see the next litigation cash cow, the next cause of action that will create a fortune for them in legal fees.
As a result of some of the efforts of the anti-gun activists and some trial lawyers, the gun manufacturing and sales industry face huge costs that arise from simply defending unjustified lawsuits, not to mention the potential of runaway verdicts. This small industry has already experienced over $200 million in such charges. Even one large verdict could bankrupt an entire industry.
Since 1988, individuals and municipalities have filed dozens of novel lawsuits against members of the firearms industry. These suits are not intended to create a solution. They are intended to drive the gun industry out of business by holding manufacturers and dealers liable for the intentional and criminal act of third parties over whom they have absolutely no control.
In testimony before a House subcommittee in 2005, the general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., said:
I believe a conservative estimate of the total, industry-wide cost of defending ourselves to date now exceeds $200 million.
What does that produce in our country other than waste and abnormal enrichment of the legal system?
This is a huge sum for a small industry such as the gun industry. The firearms industry taken together would not equal the value of a Fortune 500 company.
The danger that these lawsuits could destroy the gun industry is especially threatening because our national security and our civil liberties are at stake.
First, the gun industry manufactures firearms for America's military forces and law enforcement agencies, the 9, the 11. Due in part to Federal purchasing rules these guns are made in the U.S. by American workers. Successful lawsuits could leave the U.S. at the mercy of small foreign suppliers.
Second, by restricting the gun industry's ability to make and sell guns and ammunition, the lawsuits threaten the ability of Americans to exercise their second amendment right to bear arms.
Finally, if the firearms industry must continue to spend millions of dollars on litigation or eventually goes bankrupt, thousands of people will lose their jobs. Secondary suppliers to gunmakers will also have suffered and will continue to suffer.
This is why it is not surprising that the labor unions, representing workers at major firearms plants, such as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in East Alton, IL, support this bill. This union's business representatives stated that the jobs of their 2,850 union members ``would disappear if trial lawyers and opportunistic politicians get their way.''
The economic impact of this problem may be felt in other ways. In my home State of Oklahoma, hunting and fishing creates an enormous economic impact. It is tremendously positive. Hunters bring in retail sales of over $292 million per year; 6,755 jobs in Oklahoma are dependent on hunting; $137,122,000 in salaries and wages in Oklahoma alone; and $22 million in State sales tax per year. The financial insolvency of gun manufacturers and sellers would have a devastating effect on my State and many other States similar to Oklahoma.
Insurance rates for firearm manufacturers have skyrocketed since these suits began, and some manufacturers are already being denied insurance and seeing their policies canceled, leaving them unprotected and vulnerable to bankruptcy.
That is the ultimate goal of these suits--bankruptcy and the elimination of this arms industry. Because of that, 33 State legislatures have acted to block similar lawsuits, either by limiting the power of localities to file suit or by amending State product liability laws.
However, it only takes one lawsuit in one State to bankrupt the entire industry, making all of those State laws inconsequential. That is why it is essential that we pass Federal legislation.
Additionally, plaintiffs in these suits demand enormous monetary damages and a broad variety of injunctive relief relating to the design, the manufacture, the distribution, the marketing, and the sale of firearms.
Some of their demands: One-gun-a-month purchase restrictions not required by State laws; requiring manufacturers and distributors to ``participate in a court-ordered study of lawful demand for firearms and to cease sales in excess of lawful demand; ``prohibition on sales to dealers who are not stocking dealers with at least $250,000 of inventory--in other words, we are going to regulate how much you have to have in inventory before you can be a gun seller; a permanent injunction requiring the addition of a safety feature for handguns that will prevent their discharge by ``those who steal handguns''; and a prohibition on the sales of guns near Chicago that by their design are unreasonably attractive to criminals.
These lawsuits are frivolous. Anti-gun activists want to blame violent acts of third parties on manufacturers of guns for simply manufacturing guns and sellers of guns for simply selling them. This doesn't make any sense. This would be the equivalent of holding a car dealer responsible for a person who intentionally runs down a pedestrian simply because the car that was sold by the dealer was used by a third party to commit negligent homicide.
Guns, like many other things, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. The manufacturer or seller of a gun who is not negligent and obeys all applicable laws should not be held accountable for the unforeseeable actions of a third party. This is a country based on personal accountability, and when we start muddying that aspect of our law and culture we will see all sorts of unintended consequences.
Most of the victims of gun injuries I have seen in the emergency room as a practicing physician were people who were intentionally shot by other people. The gun was the mechanism that was used, but it was the individual who carried out that act. The gun was a tool. Should we ban all tools that are capable of committing homicide or committing injury? These people were not injured by defective guns or defective ammunition. The individuals who shot these patients deserve aggressive prosecution, not the industry that made the guns or the legal sellers of the guns. Even when I treated individuals who injured themselves with guns, these tragedies were accidents. It was not part of a quality or product defect. It was an act of stupidity on the part of people. Part of our freedom comes with the ability to make wise choices. If we limit our ability to make choices, then we limit our freedom.
These lawsuits are part of an anti-gun activist effort to make an end run around the legislative system. We have seen that in multiple areas in our country. When you can't pass it in the legislature, you get an activist judge to get done what you wanted to do in the first place, even though a majority of Americans and a majority of legislatures don't want it. But one judge decides for the rest of us.
We are coming up on a judicial nomination for the Supreme Court. One of the questions that has to be asked is what is the proposal, What is the role in terms of judges making law rather than interpreting law? It will be a key question.
So far judges have not been convinced by their arguments. Here are a few examples. The Louisiana Supreme Court struck down the right of New Orleans to bring a suit in the face of a State law forbidding it, in an opinion stating clearly:
This lawsuit constitutes an indirect attempt to regulate the lawful design, manufacture, marketing and sale of firearms.
Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck the nail on the head when dismissing all of Philadelphia's allegations, stating that ``the city's action seeks to control the gun industry by litigation, an end the city could not accomplish by passing such an ordnance.''
The Delaware Superior Court adeptly stated that ``the Court sees no duty on the manufacturer's part that goes beyond their duties with respect to design and manufacture. The Court cannot imagine that a weapon can be designed that operates for law-abiding people but not for criminals.''
A word of caution. Most new tort ideas took a while to work. All it would take is one multimillion-dollar lawsuit to severely damage this industry. This bill is limited in scope. It protects only licensed and law-abiding firearms and ammunition manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits that seek to hold manufacturers and sellers responsible for the crime that third party criminals commit with their nondefective products.
Manufacturers and sellers are still responsible for their own negligent or criminal conduct and must operate entirely within the Federal and State laws.
Firearms and ammunition manufacturers or sellers may be held liable for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; violation of a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product where the violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought; breach of contract or warranty; and product defect. They still are responsible for all that through this bill. It takes none of that away. It holds personal accountability solid and steadfast. It does not infringe on it. Claimants may still go to court to argue that their claims fall under one of the exceptions.
In my opinion, gun manufacturers and sellers are already policed enough, too much, through hundreds of pages of statutes, hundreds of pages of regulations. To name a few sources of regulations of guns and ammunition: the Internal Revenue Code, including the National Firearms Act postal regulations restricting shipping of handguns; Federal explosive law; regulations for gunpowder and ammunition manufacture; the Arms Export Control Act; the Commerce Department export regulations; the Department of Transportation regulations on ammunition explosives and hazardous material transport.
In addition to keeping explicit records that can be inspected by BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, licensed dealers have to conduct a Federal criminal background check on their retail sales either directly by the FBI through its national instant criminal background check or through State systems that also use the NICS system. All retail gun buyers are screened to the best of the Government's ability.
Additionally, the industry has voluntary programs to promote safe gun storage and to help dealers avoid sales to potential illegal traffickers.
Manufacturers also have a time-honored tradition of acting responsibly to make recalls or make repairs as they become aware of product defects.
In the past, Congress has found it necessary to protect other classes; for example, the light aircraft industry. JIM INHOFE, a Senator from Oklahoma, moved that through the House and ultimately through the Senate, an industry that was killed, literally destroyed by frivolous lawsuits. Community health centers, same thing; the aviation industry; the medical implant makers; Amtrak--we have created a special exception for Amtrak--the computer industry members who are affected by Y2K. We took the nonsense out of the courts and put it where it belongs, into statutes with common sense that requires personal accountability and responsibility.
Furthermore, Congress may enact litigation reform when lawsuits are affecting interstate commerce. In many of these lawsuits cities and individuals are trying to use the State court to restrict the conduct of the firearms industry nationally, often contrary to state policies expressed through their own legislatures.
A single verdict in favor of an anti-gun plaintiff could bankrupt or regulate an entire segment of the economy--and of America's national defense. It could be out of business, but most importantly, my right, Oklahomans' right, all of America's right to a guarantee of the second amendment to the Bill of Rights secured for them in their ability to own and use firearms responsibly.
This bill will protect our national security. It will protect our constitutional rights. It will protect an industry responsibly, and it will protect thousands of jobs. It also will ensure that people who have suffered a real injury from a real cause of action can be heard and taken seriously while law-abiding manufacturers and dealers of firearms may continue to serve the law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutionally guaranteed second amendment rights.
Mr. President, I thank you, and I note the absence of a quorum.