Senator Chris Dodd: Archived Speech
For Immediate Release

Floor Statement of Senator Chris Dodd on the Gun Liability Bill

July 27, 2005

Let me take a few minutes, if I can, to express some views. It is not every day that I question at all the majority leader's decision to seek to bring a particular piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate. As someone who has been in this body for almost a quarter of a century, I have great respect for the role of majority leader and how difficult a job it is. In fact, it is the job of the majority leader to set the agenda and to exercise his or her prerogatives to move that the Senate proceed to a particular matter. So I am not questioning his right to do so. I am questioning the wisdom of having made this decision.

In this case, I cannot let pass the decision the majority leader has made to bring us to consideration of a gun liability bill. By his actions, the Senate has been prevented from concluding consideration of the Defense authorization bill. We were making very good progress on that bill on a number of issues that were very important to our men and women in uniform, to the families of our service men and women, to their survivors, and to the veterans of this country who were also the subject of numerous amendments that would have been offered on the bill had it remained on the floor of the Senate for another couple of days.

In my years here, good debates on a Defense authorization bill, which is what this body is all about, have gone on 9, 10, and 11 days before a cloture motion would be filed. There have been other occasions when it has been filed in less time, but never in less than 5 days of debate. You always look forward to the week or two prior to the August break when we gather to debate and discuss the Defense authorization bill.

For the good part of the last 24 years, we have not had a debate on the subject matter of that legislation at a time of war. This time, of course, we were. Therefore, it was stunning to me to know, at a time when our men and women are in a dangerous place, when there are literally hundreds who have lost their lives, thousands who have been injured, and thousands every day who are putting themselves in harm's way, that the decision was made by this body, by the leadership of this body, to put aside that bill, which might do some things to make their lives safer, provide some security for the survivors of those who lost their lives, and be of some help to veterans. It is stunning that we would set aside those issues to take up this bill that is now before us. In my quarter of a century in this body, I don't recall the Senate ever being forced off of a Defense bill in this manner.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee put it simply and succinctly several months ago in this Chamber. Senator Warner of Virginia said the following--when confronted, by the way, with a similar fact situation. There was a movement a year or so ago to take up the class action reform bill, of which I was the principal author at that time. I am a strong supporter of tort reform. There was a movement to bring up the class action reform bill.

In fact, I wrote a letter, with several other Members of this body, urging the leadership, as strongly as we felt about class action reform, not to set aside the Defense authorization bill in order to bring up the class action reform bill.

That point of view prevailed and we stayed on the Defense authorization bill. But during consideration of that motion or that effort, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said, ``We are at war.''

We have men and women wearing the uniform of the United States Armed Forces who are this very moment being hunted by enemies of our Nation. They are in combat. They are under siege. They are enduring some of the harshest conditions ever faced by American soldiers.

That is exactly where we are today. Yet, unlike a year or so ago when we turned back the efforts of those who would have put aside the Defense authorization bill to deal with a class action bill, this time when it comes to the gun lobby we said no, the gun lobby is more important than the men and women in uniform, more important than the people who are putting their lives on the line every day.

So here we have now the majority of the Senate saying those soldiers will have to wait a while. This is evidently a higher priority, and it is this bill, a bill that would confer special privileges on a small but very powerful industry. I am frankly incredulous, to say the least, that we will apparently recess for an entire month having spent barely 2 days to decide on the critical needs of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, veterans, and their survivors. I think we should finish our job. It is the least the Senate could do for our troops before we take a month-long break from our work.

Our business is about choices, sometimes very difficult choices. You can't do everything at the same time. But I don't know how you could possibly draw the conclusion that this immunization bill for the gun industry is a more important piece of legislation than the Defense authorization bill, to provide additional protection and the needs of the people in uniform, for veterans, for survivors. I do not know how anyone could possibly draw that conclusion at a time we are at war. What do people think happened in London a few days ago, in Sharm el-Sheik a few days ago? What event has to occur to convince this body that we ought to be about the business of doing everything we can to protect this Nation? Instead, we decide it isn't quite that important, that this is more important.

I am stunned in many ways that anyone would even suggest this legislation in lieu of the Defense authorization bill. I can only imagine what the reaction would be if I were to come to this Chamber and offer a similar amendment that would exclude another entire industry from exposure to potential liability for wrongdoing.

I have more than a passing knowledge of the gun industry. The State of Connecticut, which I am proud to represent, has been, and to my knowledge remains, home to more gun manufacturers than any other State in America. I know of nine such companies that currently call Connecticut their home: Colt Manufacturing, Sturm Ruger, U.S. Repeating Arms, Marlin Firearms, U.S. Firearms Manufacturing, Charter Arms, L.W. Seecamp, Wildey, and O.F. Mossbert and Sons. From 1972 to 1997, more guns were manufactured in my home State of Connecticut than any other State. More than 25 million in all were produced in my small State of Connecticut. These are good people. These are good companies. And I represent good people who work in this industry. We produce fabulous guns. They are well constructed. They are the envy of the world.

Eli Whitney, of course, is best known as the inventor of the cotton gin. He also built a musket armory in New Haven, CT in the late 1700s. Since then, Connecticut has been the gun manufacturing capital of the country of our Nation, if not the world, for that matter. The first revolver was developed and mass produced in Connecticut in the 1830s by Samuel Colt and his wife Elizabeth who ran that company after Sam passed away at a very young age. That company today bears his name and that revolver became known as ``the gun that won the West.''

I also represent probably more insurance companies and more pharmaceutical companies in the State of Connecticut than almost any other State in the Nation. I am very proud to represent these industries. They do a first-rate job. But even though I support the people who work in these businesses and respect what they do, the idea that we would take any one of these industries in this Senator's State and absolve it from its legal responsibilities is stunning to me.

I have been a strong advocate of legal reform. I authored the securities litigation reform bill with the Senator from New Mexico. I wrote the uniform standards litigation bill. I coauthored the tort reforms on the Y2K litigation with Senator Bennett of Utah. I have been a proponent of asbestos litigation reform. I coauthored the Class Action Fairness Act. I am proud of the work I have done in the area of tort reform. We need it. It is necessary. In my view, these bills have struck the right balance between frivolous lawsuits, while retaining citizens' rights to seek the redress of wrongs in a court of law.

But the idea that we would take an entire industry and give it immunity from wrongdoing is simply wrong, in my view. We are saying to this industry, if you act irresponsibly or wrongfully, and if you can foresee the consequences of your irresponsible or wrongful conduct, you do not have to worry about being held accountable for your actions. No matter how much harm you may cause, no matter how many people die or are injured at least in part as a result of your wrongful conduct, you will not be held responsible. In this day and age that this body would so overwhelmingly endorse an idea such as this is breathtaking. And it is little more than ironic that such an idea would be put forward by some who routinely lecture others about the need to take ``responsibility'' for their actions.

Evidently, taking responsibility is a fine philosophy for some, the poor, the elderly, schoolchildren, and men and women who struggle each and every day to put food on the table for themselves and their families. But the gun industry is being absolved in this legislation of virtually all responsibility for its actions.

Let's consider some of the consequences of enacting this legislation. First, it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on reducing the rate of gun violence in our Nation. In fact, this bill ignores the devastating toll firearm violence continues to take on our fellow citizens.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were more than 30,000 deaths in the United States from firearms in the year 2002 alone--30,000 deaths. That is, of course, 10 times the number of lives that were tragically lost on September 11 at the World Trade Center, here in Washington, and in a field in Pennsylvania. In fact, a year of gun violence in America nearly equals the number of Americans who died in the Korean war and almost half the Americans lost in the entire Vietnam conflict. The numbers are staggering. These numbers exceed by a huge margin the number of firearms-related deaths on a per capita basis in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and France.

Among those individuals most affected by gun violence are children. Firearms are the second leading cause of death among young Americans age 19 and under. Approximately 2,700 children under the age of 19 are killed each year as a result of gun violence or the improper use of guns.

The rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is already 12 times higher in the United States than 25 other industrialized nations combined.

Let me repeat that. The firearms death rate of children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations in the world. One study noted the firearms injury epidemic among children is nearly 10 times larger than the polio epidemic in the first half of the 20th century.

Yet we are about to exclude an entire industry from even being brought to the bar to question whether they might be liable for some of these deaths.

The human cost of gun -related deaths and injuries is tragic in itself, but the economic loss is also significant. According to a study published in the year 2000, the average cost of treating gunshot wounds was $22,000 for each unintentional shooting and $18,000 for each of the gun injuries. These costs would undoubtedly be much higher today. The total societal cost of firearms is estimated to be between $100 billion and $126 billion each year. Who pays these expenses? By large measure, the American taxpayer does.

My colleagues speak against unfunded mandates, and yet this bill, if enacted, burdens the Nation's cities and counties with billions and billions of dollars in medical care, emergency services, police protection, courts, prisons, and school security. It is shameful that, while tens of thousands of people are dying each year due to firearms and while the American taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars to cope with the effect of gun violence, the Senate is doing absolutely nothing to make our streets and homes safer, in my view. In fact, we are doing quite the opposite through our actions today.

Second, the legislation will give this industry special legal protections no other industry in the United States has. Neither cigarette companies nor asbestos companies nor polluters have such sweeping immunity as we are about to give this industry.

Let me quote from a recent letter sent to all Senators and Representatives from over 75 law professors from across our Nation. According to them the bill:

..... would represent a sharp break with traditional principles of tort liability. No other industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed such a blanket freedom from responsibility for the foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent conduct.

Gun manufacturers and sellers are already exempt from Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation, despite the fact that firearms are among the most dangerous and deadly products in our society. We have more regulations on toy guns than we do on the ones that fire real bullets. Imagine a toy gun that you buy from Mattel. The Consumer Product Safety Commission issues literally pages of regulations on what must be included in the production of that gun . There is not a single word in the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the production of guns that may kill 30,000 people each year in this country.

The National Rifle Association made sure of this exemption 30 years ago, just as highly addictive tobacco products are not subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

I have supported tort reform in specific areas where I believe it is appropriate. My colleagues know I worked with many of them on these issues. At the same time I recognize that litigation has been a powerful tool in holding parties accountable for their negligence and providing them with the incentive to improve the safety of their products. It has been employed on behalf of other potentially dangerous products such as automobiles, lawnmowers, household products, and medicines to protect the health of the American people. The fact that guns are already specifically exempt from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reason enough, in my view, why we can't afford to grant the firearms industry legal immunity.

Third, this legislation is likely to increase criminal behavior, in my view, in our Nation. Consider the views of the people who know best, our Nation's law enforcement officers. Yesterday some 80 sheriffs, police chiefs, and others wrote to each and every Senator that this bill will ``strip away the rights of gun violence victims, including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers.''

This legislation will do nothing to help our Nation's law enforcement officers to stop these criminals or to receive justice if they are shot or killed. Who better to listen to than our own police chiefs? Law enforcement officers will tell you this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill, and it is going to cause more problems in the streets of our country. And here is what two former Directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had to say about this bill:

To handcuff ATF, as this bill does, will only serve to shield corrupt gun sellers, and facilitate criminals and terrorists who seek to wreak havoc with deadly weapons. To take such anti-law enforcement action in the post 9/11 age, when we know that suspected terrorists are obtaining firearms, and may well seek them from irresponsible gun dealers, is nothing short of madness.

If this legislation is enacted, it would remove any incentive under current tort law for gun manufacturers to make their firearms safer. Studies have shown that the technology is both readily available and very inexpensive to help avoid future gun -related tragedies. For example, a load indicator could be included to tell the user that the gun is still loaded. That is never going to happen now, I promise you. A magazine disconnect safety could be installed by the manufacturers to prevent guns from firing if the magazine is removed. Even childproofing the gun with safety locks can be done relatively easily. However, if this bill is enacted into law, gun manufacturers will lose the huge incentive to include such reasonable safety devices in their products.

Evidence has been uncovered that reveals that the gun industry has been engaged in irresponsible behavior for many years. Senator Reed and others have already mentioned one such industry actor, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Takoma, WA.

This gun store claims it ``lost'' the gun used by the Washington, DC, snipers, John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, as well as more than 200 other guns. Many of these firearms were traced to other crimes. Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had no record of the gun ever being sold and did not report it until the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms recovered the weapon and traced it back. After the rifle was linked to the sniper shootings and the newspaper reported on the disappearance of the gun from Bull's Eye, the rifle manufacturer, Bushmaster, still considered Bull's Eye a good customer and was happy to keep selling to that shop.

The judge in this case has since ruled twice that the suit brought by the families of the DC area sniper victims against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster should proceed to trial, and a preliminary ruling has been rejected.

Nevertheless, this case, as well as other important pending and future lawsuits against negligent gun dealers and manufacturers, would be banned if this bill becomes law, as I suspect it will, according to the opinion of some of our Nation's most prominent legal scholars.

There are many more instances of the gun industry not taking steps to prevent guns from reaching the illegal market. According to Federal data from the year 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Undercover sting operations in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana have found that such dealers routinely permit gun sales ``to straw purchasers,'' individuals with clean records who buy guns for criminals, juveniles, or other individuals barred by law from purchase.

If the Senate bill is enacted, police officers shot by a gun bought by a ``straw purchaser'' would no longer get his day or her day in court.

Gun shows are also an important source of guns for criminals. Studies have shown that unlicensed dealers often sell large quantities of weapons at these shows without having to run criminal background checks or keeping records. Many of my colleagues might recall that a gun show was the source of the firearm purchased by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before they went on their murderous rampage at Columbine high school, but the Senate bill would not hold such gun dealers responsible for the injuries and deaths their firearms cause.

Supporters of this legislation contend that there is a gun litigation crisis in America and that many of the cases being brought against the gun industry are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are no massive backlogs of claims against the gun dealers and manufacturers burdening our court system. About 10 million tort suits were filed in State courts from 1993 through the year 2003; 57 of them were against gunmakers or dealers, 57 out of 10 million cases. Is that a litigation crisis, with 57 lawsuits out of 10 million other suits filed in the same relevant area? And the result of those 57 cases. The impact on the gun industry has hardly been crushing. Some of these suits have been dismissed. Some have been settled. Some have been appealed.

The industry claims it is spending $200 million a year on litigation costs. Yet it offers absolutely no data to support this. There is evidence that litigation costs are virtually insignificant: 57 cases in 10 years out of 10 million tort cases being filed. That alone ought to tell you this is a frivolous piece of legislation. This is what is frivolous, to suggest we need to clean up a problem involving 57 cases, many of which were dismissed.

One major gun manufacturer in a filing last November with the Securities and Exchange Commissiona filing, by the way, that it made under the pain and penalty of perjury--said this:

It is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the company.

Another gun manufacturer said this to the SEC in March of 2005:

In the nine months ended January 31, 2005, we incurred $4,535 in defense costs ..... relative to product liability and municipal litigation.

That is a litigation crisis? It is outrageous to claim it is.

Of the small number of lawsuits filed against this industry, none to my knowledge have been dismissed as frivolous. On the contrary, there have been favorable rulings on the legal merits of many of these cases. Courts have recognized such cases are based upon well-established legal principles, negligence, product liability, and public nuisance. Important information on the gun industry's wrongful actions, which has been cloaked in secrecy for many years, has been revealed and injured parties have been compensated, fairly and justly. These cases, however, will be precluded, and the information gleaned from them will be lost if the gun industry is granted immunity, as it seeks with this legislation.

Rather than giving special immunity to those manufacturers and dealers who wrongfully make and sell guns to criminals, the Senate should be today or at some point--again I wish we were back on the Defense authorization bill--at some point we should work to protect our police officers and the people they protect every single day. Instead of zeroing out the COPS program we ought to take our time to do something about strengthening the police departments of our Nation. Rather than placing more guns on the streets, the Senate should be considering more responsible gun legislation such as making the ban on assault weapons permanent and closing the gun show loophole.

Rather than encouraging reasonable and safe gun use, the Senate is destroying any incentive for gun manufacturers to improve the safety of their deadly wares. This legislation, to this Senator, is an outrage. And, I represent more of these manufacturers than any other Member of this body. I know it is not common for a Senator to get up and speak against an industry in his State, and I have at least nine of them, as I said earlier, that have produced 25 million guns in the last 12 or 13 years. I respect my manufacturers. They are good people. But the idea that I would immunize nine industries in my State from their wrongdoings is incredible. While it may seem strange to have the Senator from the largest gun -producing State making these statements, I feel strongly. It is wrong to be doing it. It is an outrage.

You can say this is wrong, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for taking an entire industry and not holding it liable for the harm it may cause to people across the country. Thirty thousand people die every year, almost 3,000 kids, and we are about to say to the manufacturer of the products that kill them to take a walk and that you never have to show up again in court. That is shameful.


- 30 -

 

Printer friendly version