 |
||||
about
us/weekly Mass readings
In hope we are saved--NEW papal encyclical |
July 28, 2005 KENNEDY CONTINUES FIGHT AGAINST GUN LEGISLATION
This bill is deceptively named the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." But it will make it virtually impossible to bring lawsuits against the gun industry, even in circumstances in which the industry's conduct contributes to unlawful gun violence. The bill purports to exempt suits in which the manufacturers and sellers engage in illegal or negligent conduct, but these exemptions are poorly defined and clearly would not cover many types of bad conduct. The Senate Majority Leader says this bill is of urgent importance, taking precedence over the defense bill, because "the Department of Defense faces the real prospect of having to outsource sidearms for our soldiers to foreign manufacturers." The Republican leadership and the Bush Administration will do whatever it takes to give the gun industry all it wants. The NRA wants gun dealers and manufacturers to be protected from lawsuits. The NRA expects -- the NRA demands -- that this body remove the last resort for victims of gun violence against negligent -- and often complicit -- gun dealers and manufacturers by barring all types of cases. Let's be clear about what this bill does not do: It does not help our law enforcement officials fight crime or terrorism. It does not meet the urgent need to strengthen any of our gun control laws. It does not affect -- it does not address at all -- the rights or ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase or own a gun. It does not have anything to do with the Second Amendment -- no matter how you interpret the language of that Amendment. This bill has one motivation: payback by the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association. As the New York Times reported less than two weeks ago, Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the NRA, made it clear that the NRA expected total support from its allies -- or else. Mr. LaPierre said, "It's simply bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment at election time," asserting that Vice President Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election because he supported gun control, including a federal ban on assault weapons. That's the same assault weapons ban that President Bush told the American people he supported, but then allowed to expire. We know what happened when the NRA pushed this special-interest bill last year. When the Senate voted to reauthorize the assault weapons ban as part of the bill, the NRA called supporters and instructed them to vote against the bill that it had just been lobbying for. What a disgraceful spectacle - members of this great body reversing themselves on the floor of the Senate minutes before a vote because of a single call from the NRA. That same kind of raw, special interest power is now being used again -- to take the Senate away from the important business of protecting our men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- so that a few unsavory gun dealers and gun manufacturers can channel powerful killing machines into the hands of criminals and terrorists in this country without any regulation or judicial oversight whatever. The manufacturers of guns -- unlike the manufacturers of nearly every other consumer product in the country -- are not subject to consumer product safety standards. As it stands, manufacturers and sellers in the industry are free to design, make and market these products with no independent review of their potential risks. The gun industry is the only industry whose products are not subject to basic consumer health and safety regulation. Why stop with the gun industry? Why not make tire manufacturers immune from lawsuit? Or car manufacturers? Or bicycle manufacturers? Or toy manufacturers? Obviously, it would be absurd to shield any negligent manufacturers from liability for their actions. But when it comes to shielding the gun industry, the NRA is calling the tune. And too many members of this body are tragically dancing to it. The other side also tells us that it is too burdensome on the gun industry to fight these lawsuits. After all, we are told, there are thousands of gun laws on the books, and the government can enforce them. Let's look at some of those gun laws and how the gun lobby has systematically made it more difficult, and in some cases, even impossible, for the government to police negligent gun dealers and manufacturers, while making it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns. Federal gun dealers are regulated under federal law and required to perform background checks of gun buyers. But at the urging of the gun lobby several years ago, Congress drastically narrowed the definition of gun dealer. Now, there are many unregulated individuals who don't meet the new definition. These reckless and unlicensed dealers are now selling millions of guns to people, including criminals and terrorists, without background checks. All of that is legal, because the United States Congress kowtowed to the National Rifle Association. In the caves of Afghanistan, our troops found an Al Qaeda manual that instructed terrorists on how to buy guns legally in the United States, without having to undergo a background check. Al Qaeda understands that we have created a mess that allows -- even encourages -- criminals and terrorists to traffic in guns. But we won't do anything about that -- the so-called gun show loophole -- because the NRA has snapped its fingers and said NO! We are told by the other side that victims of gun violence don't need recourse to the courts because the government is already inspecting and overseeing the businesses of gun dealers. But is that the whole story? Absolutely not. At the direction of the NRA, Congress limited federal inspections of gun dealers to once a year and passed laws making it virtually impossible for agents to conduct inspections more than once a year. If an agent happens to inspect a negligent or even grossly negligent gun dealer in January, the dealer doesn't have to worry about the feds showing up for at least another year. Federally-regulated financial institutions can be inspected without notice, whenever and as often the as regulators deem appropriate. Meat-packing plants, shipyards, iron foundries and gas refineries can all be inspected without notice, whenever and as often the regulators deem appropriate. But not gun dealers. Congress and the NRA have said that they can be inspected only once a year. What difference does that make in the life of the average citizen? It makes a lot of difference. Just ask the innocent victims of the DC sniper attacks. When the regulators can't keep tabs on gun dealers, it means that companies like the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store -- the dealer that supplied the Bushmaster rifle to the DC snipers -- can get away with supposedly "losing" the rifle that ended up in the hands of the DC snipers -- and "losing" more than 200 other guns that ended up who knows where. The DC sniper victims had only the courts to turn to for recourse, because Congress made it impossible for federal agents to police unsavory gun dealers like Bull's Eye. Now the NRA is telling Congress -- take away the courts too. Why? An obvious answer is that gun dealers and manufacturers want to sell more guns. Our laws are designed by the NRA to increase the sales of guns by dealers and manufacturers, even if they are sold by or to criminals. The NRA is lavishly rewarded for lobbying successes, and so are the members of Congress who do their bidding. It's hard to reach any other conclusion. The unholy alliance and control of the legislative process against the safety of our citizens is immoral, and it's a disgrace. But let's look at the other outrageous actions that this body has taken because the NRA has demanded it. Congress has cut federal funding for the agency that oversees gun dealers and manufacturers. In fact, the GAO has recently reported that the ATF is so under-funded that it would take it 22 years to inspect the records of all of the gun dealers in this country just once! The GAO report also found that terrorists and people on terrorist watch lists are not automatically barred from purchasing guns and are routinely buying guns in this country. This must stop. The gun industry must have some accountability. That is why I am offering my amendment that would ensure that cases could be brought against gun manufacturers and dealers aiding or abetting a representative of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. You can find the list Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations on the Internet and it includes Al Qaeda and HAMAS, among others. How can Congress deny victims the right to challenge a manufacturer or dealer who provided guns to a foreign terrorist organization which caused them harm? This Administration continually says that we are engaged in a war on terror, but it takes the position that the war on terror doesn't allow us to prevent terrorists from buying guns in this country. Because of the actions of this Administration and this Congress in caving to the NRA, terrorists can now add assault weapons to their arsenal. All to appease the NRA so they'll give campaign contributions and get out the vote. This is not only a disgrace -- it's criminal, and it has to stop. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. After 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in the history of the nation, the Justice Department -- over the objection of the FBI and at the urging of the NRA -- decided that the government had to destroy within 24 hours the background check records of all gun purchasers. What is the rationale for the destruction of background check records in 24 hours? Former Attorney General Ashcroft and the NRA decided that it was a violation of the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens to have their records held on file for 90 days, as they had been for years, since the passage of the Brady Law. This is the same John Ashcroft who, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 prohibited -- that's right, he prohibited -- the FBI from examining the gun-purchasing records of any of the 19 hijackers or any of the 1200 other terrorists suspects who were detained for questioning. What kind of society are we turning into? We're supposed to be protecting this nation from terrorism, not aiding and abetting terrorists. Within days of the 9/11 attacks, we knew who the hijackers were. We knew where they sat on the planes. We saw some of their faces on surveillance videos. We knew what they had charged on their credit cards. We knew where they had gone to school. We knew where they lived and where they traveled. We knew that they had tried to get pilot's licenses. We knew that they had looked for ways to transport hazardous chemicals. But we didn't know whether they or their terrorist friends had purchased firearms, because we were worried about their privacy rights and their right to bear arms? Give me a break! Every day, law-abiding Americans have their every move video-taped by surveillance cameras. They are required to take off their shoes and jackets and be searched at airports and have their luggage inspected and opened. Yet, our government worries about the privacy rights of terrorist gun owners and refuses to let the FBI look at gun purchase records of suspected terrorists. The Justice Department refuses to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns. And then it destroys those records in 24 hours. Something is rotten here, and it has to stop. I ask you again. Whose side are we on? Instead of addressing real issues that can make our country and our communities safer, we are considering a bill that that will close the courthouse door to victims of gun crimes, and give a free pass to the handful of gun dealers and gun manufacturers who sell firearms to terrorists and criminals. And we are doing it to appease the special interest of the NRA. That is why I plan to offer an amendment that would allow victims to sue if a gun manufacturer or dealer aids, abets or conspires to sell guns to anyone on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist List" or "Top Most Wanted Fugitives List." This list is available over the Internet and posted across America. Victims of terrorist crimes deserve their day in court. How can Congress justify an immunity shield for companies that knowingly provide guns to terrorists and fugitives identified by the FBI? Law-abiding citizens who sell or purchase firearms do not want to give criminals a free pass. But that's exactly what this bill will do. If we vote for it, we will be aiding and abetting these wrongdoers, just as Congress has done for years at the command of the NRA. This bill gives greater protection to the gun industry than Congress gave to the health care industry, teachers and volunteers under the headline of tort reform. The legislation is so extreme that it requires the immediate dismissal of any cases pending in either state or federal court. By doing so, the bill denies victims their day in court, amounts to an unprecedented interference with the judicial branch of government, and is an outrageous violation of the rule of law. The bill's supporters misrepresent the real goal of the lawsuits filed against this industry. These lawsuits are not filed in an effort to bankrupt the industry. Like all tort suits, the victims turn to the courts to obtain compensation for their injuries and demand responsible conduct. Let's be clear and debunk a few myths that the other side is spinning: The gun industry is not uniquely burdened with lawsuits -- they just don't like what the public discovers about the industry and its practices when documents are produced in litigation. And this immunity bill is not aimed only at "frivolous" lawsuits. The truth is that it bars almost all actions for negligence. If this bill had become law last year, the families of the victims of the DC snipers would have been barred from suing and receiving their $2 million settlement from the gun dealer in Washington State who "lost" and couldn't account for more than 200 guns in its inventory, many of which "lost" weapons -- like the assault rifle used by the DC snipers -- that were used in the commission of crimes. If passed, the bill forces the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the family of Massachusetts victim Danny Guzman, an innocent bystander shot on Christmas Eve 1999. Danny was killed by a gun stolen by the employee working in a gun manufacturing plant. Danny, here in a picture with his cousin, was a true victim of negligent conduct. This gun factory lacked adequate security, record-keeping and other reasonable safeguards to prevent employees from taking guns out of the plant in their pockets. The lack of security was so bad that the owners of the plant didn't even know guns were missing. Danny's mother and his two surviving daughters sued the manufacturer, claiming it had negligently hired criminals to work in its plant, and had such irresponsible security that it allowed them to walk out of the plant with guns without serial numbers. One of these guns was used to shoot Danny. This case should not be dismissed. This bill would also result in the automatic dismissal of a case just filed in Pennsylvania. Anthony Oliver, a fourteen-year-old boy, was killed by a handgun that discharged accidentally while he was playing with friends. Anthony's life was cut short due to this gun seller's reckless conduct. His family filed a case against the gun companies that negligently allowed one of Anthony's friends to obtain a handgun. The dealer who sold the gun had a history of supplying guns to criminals and had not even taken the minimum steps to screen purchasers. Over a four year period, Lou's sold over four hundred guns traced to criminals. Under this bill, Anthony's family will not get their day in court and the irresponsible activities of this gun dealer and its supplier will be not be stopped. This case should not be dismissed. This bill would also bar municipal lawsuits. If this bill passes, four pending cases involving New York City, the District of Columbia, Gary, Indiana and Cleveland, Ohio will all be dismissed. The amendment that I plan to offer will make sure that these families and communities get their day in court and that the rules of the game are not changed mid-course. Victims of such violence should have the same right to equal protection of the laws as other Americans. This bill is not about protecting the gun industry from bankruptcy. This bill is a blatant, special-interest bill to protect gun manufacturers and sellers who provide guns to criminals or even terrorists. With this bill, Congress is aiding and abetting in the perpetuation of these crimes. Enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in saying no to this shameful bill and get back to the serious issues that face our country. |
|||
