Statements and Speeches

Statement of Representative Henry A. Waxman
H.R. 1036, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
April 9, 2003

Mr. Speaker I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1036. This bill is special interest legislation of the worst kind. It would grant extensive immunity from liability to gun manufacturers and gun dealers.

Under current law, gun manufacturers and gun dealers must act responsibly. Like other businesses and individuals, if they act negligently - or if they blatantly disregard the obvious consequences of their actions - they may be held liable.

H.R. 1036 would eviscerate this protection. The bill says to gun manufacturers and gun dealers: go ahead and ignore common sense, disregard the consequences of your actions, and we will let you off the hook. You are no longer responsible for your actions. This special exemption will endanger our citizens and almost certainly cost lives.

Furthermore, this bill is drafted so broad and carelessly that it could extend complete immunity from liability to gun dealers -- even if they sell weapons to suspected terrorists.

To resolve that ambiguity, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to ensure that gun dealers are held accountable when they sell weapons to people they know or suspect are members of terrorist organizations, or people they know are likely to supply these weapons to terrorist organizations.

But the Rules Committee refused to allow debate on my amendment. This is simply inexplicable. My amendment would clarify that gun dealers who sell to terrorists are not shielded from liability. Are we so captured by the gun industry that we want to immunize the industry from liability even when terrorists are involved?

There is an exemption in the bill that would hold dealers liable if they knew or should have known that a buyer would use the weapons to injure himself or others. But what about the more dangerous prospect of a suspicious buyer who is acquiring the weapons to give to someone else in his terrorist organization.

There is an exemption in the bill to preserve civil liability if the dealer is convicted of "knowingly" assisting in the commission of a violent act. But what about a gun dealer that has a strong suspicion - not definite knowledge - that the weapon is going to end up in the hands of a terrorist organization.

This is precisely the difference between criminal conduct and civil negligence. Our civil liability laws require that people act reasonably, even if there is no criminal penalty. And this is exactly the protection this bill would eliminate.

We are in a war against terrorism. The last thing we should do is immunize gun dealers who traffic with suspected terrorists. Yet that is just what this bill does. It is dangerously shortsighted that the Rules Committee blatantly ignored an opportunity to fix it.

Civil liability should be determined based on a comprehensive review of all the relevant circumstances. But there should be no impregnable shield to liability, because that only encourages careless and reckless behavior. This is wrong, and it is dangerous. That's why this bill must be defeated.