Gun Opponents Criticize Firearm Tort Reform
(CNSNews.com) - On the sixth anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado that left 15 people dead, gun control activists Wednesday criticized a U.S. House bill that would protect licensed gun dealers who sell the weapons that end up being used in the commission of crimes.The "Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act" would protect gun dealers from lawsuits because, according to the text of the bill, dealers "should not be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended."
Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the bill "bad public policy" and said "the timing is exceptionally bad taste."
Tom Mauser, the father of Daniel Mauser, who was one of those killed when two students opened fire at Columbine High School in 1999, said the bill would "[take] away the rights of gun violence victims" and criticized the timing of the bill, which was scheduled for the House Judiciary Committee docket on Wednesday, the anniversary of the shooting.
Debate was held on the bill Wednesday but a vote on moving it out of committee was postponed for one week due to afternoon floor votes in the House. The bill was originally scheduled for a committee vote a week before the anniversary of Columbine.
"It is complete madness for Congress to tell the [gun] industry, with this bill, that it's okay to be irresponsible," Mauser said in a Brady Campaign release. "We cannot allow the gun industry to be exempt from the responsibilities that everyone else in society must shoulder."
Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm said the bill was the work of the National Rifle Association. "The logic of the bill is that the National Rifle Association is very proud that it has an extraordinary amount of power in the House, a little bit less so in the Senate and it has a strong working relationship with the White House, so it wants to pass some of the most ludicrous legislation it possibly can," Mauser said.
The NRA, on its website, stated support for the bill, without the "anti-gun amendments" that the organization believes have doomed similar legislation in the past. "Firearms manufacturers have already spent more than $200 million in legal fees," the NRA stated, "yet have not been found liable by a single court for the criminal misuse of their highly regulated products."
"The entire gun industry is at risk" as a result of the potential legal costs, according to the NRA, which wants its members to urge their elected officials to support the bill, in the interest of "saving jobs, and protecting your Second Amendment rights."
Hamm told Cybercast News Service that the bill is not about protecting manufacturers from lawsuits over faulty manufacturing. "It provides exemptions for product purposes," he said, allowing victims to sue gun makers for improper production. "But it doesn't provide an exception for what 95 percent of civil litigation in this country is about, which is negligence."
The bill would not restrict lawsuits against a seller "for negligent entrustment" or a case in which "a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product."
Hamm said dealers who break the rules are not held responsible by government prosecutors, "because U.S. attorneys' offices have a huge backlog." He added that because the government doesn't pursue mismanagement and negligent behavior, "you ought to be able to sue them and hold them accountable."
Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, the sponsor of the bill, declined to comment to Cybercast News Service before the bill was moved out of committee. Stearns has sponsored similar legislation in the past, including a bill of the same name in 2002.
A Senate version of the bill has also been introduced, sponsored by Senators Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican and Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat.
In a release regarding the 2002 version of the bill, Stearns said it "addresses the growing problem of junk lawsuits filed with the intention of driving the firearms industry out of business by attempting to hold firearms manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties beyond their control."
Stearns added that such lawsuits "have no legal merit" and constitute "attempts to bypass the legislative process in order to impose gun control through the courts."
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.