LAUTENBERG on the senate floor 2-25-04

[Harry Tuttle]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S25FE4-0009:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

___Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, returning to the gun immunity bill that is being presented, this is legislation that is being bullied through the Congress.

___I have been here a long time, now going into my 20th year. This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation I have ever seen. We have never seen such a complete sellout. This is like a fire sale to a special interest lobby.

___The bill is absolutely a free pass. It says to the gun industry: Do anything you want, and you have no one who can punish you by going to our court system, established effectively by our Constitution. They can do whatever they want, no matter how negligent, reckless, or irresponsible.

___Of all the people in society to provide special protections to, why in the world would we give immunity from redress to this industry?

___This immunity bill says even reckless behavior--forget about negligence. Negligence says I didn't mean to do it, but I didn't check on the process. Reckless behavior could be deliberate. There could be reckless behavior in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of guns. No matter how destructive the result is to life and limb of innocent people, the victims of that conduct cannot hold you accountable. It just does not make sense.

___We hear this claim from our friends on the other side about ``frivolous lawsuits'' is how they describe it. Frivolous lawsuits--lawsuits that, frankly, are far from frivolous because the damage is beyond description when a family loses a child, a father, a brother, a mother, or a sister, or some child is permanently injured and cannot function normally. Frivolous? I don't call that frivolous. These are valid claims of wrongdoing by an industry that puts profit ahead of human life, and we can't let them go without consequence.

___Let us ask the gun victims if their lawsuits are frivolous. Ask those who have lost loved ones at the hands of the DC area snipers just over a year ago. And talking about the DC snipers, they were prohibited by law from buying guns. Under law, they could not sell guns to Lee Malvo. He walked into a gun shop and walked out with a sniper rifle. A sniper rifle is a pretty big piece of equipment.

___I invite my colleagues to look at this image. This chart says they lost 237 guns; 237 guns for which they have no responsibility to account. They said: Gee whiz, how do you like that, we lost all these lethal weapons that may have just kind of walked out or fallen down a crack in the floor someplace. It is outrageous--including one of those weapons that wound up in the hands of those who committed these atrocities, Lee Malvo and John Muhammad.

___This is a picture of a gun shop that has become all too familiar. It is called the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. They lost the guns.

___In the wake of the sniper case, we now know that in addition to losing hundreds of guns from their inventory, this gun shop cannot locate the firearms sales records they are required by law to keep to help police solve crimes. Those records that were recovered showed that Bull's Eye frequently sold numerous guns to individual buyers, a sure sign of phony straw purchases. But obviously this rogue gun store looked the other way.

___According to ATF records, between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by Bull's Eye were involved in at least 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings, and assaults. Guns in 52 crimes were traced back to this one gunshop.

___Under this gun immunity bill, Bull's Eye gets a free pass. They would not be accountable to victims of their negligence, and it is a despicable proposal.

___DC sniper Lee Malvo could not have legally purchased a Bushmaster assault weapon from Bull's Eye. He was too young. But he walked into the Bull's Eye store in broad daylight and walked out in a short time with a Bushmaster XM-15. That is

___the weapon he and John Muhammad used to murder and injure their victims.

___I ask my colleagues to take a look. How could he get behind the counter, walk out with a weapon, and not be noticed? It was captured on film, but they didn't see it. What an odd coincidence that is.

___It is outrageous. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who looks at this picture to know this weapon could not have disappeared without being noticed. Look at the size of it. It tells the story. But then I guess what is being asked for is sympathy for this gun shop, this place that let the murder weapon out of its sight and into the hands of these madmen who shot people at random.

___Let them get away with that, with no repercussion, no lawsuits: You injured my child, you injured my husband, you injured my wife? People were shot sitting alongside their mates, and we want to protect them? What do we have to protect them for? I don't understand it.

___To me there is an element of curiosity here that just does not register. I don't understand the wailing and weeping about how to protect these guys, these dispensers of murder. It is awful. Yet we hear the case: Gee whiz, if you had an automobile and a drunk driver drove it and killed somebody, why should the automobile company be responsible? We saw that once.

___Ford Motor Company made the Pinto. When it was struck from the rear, it would catch fire. We had people testify. They were so disfigured, it was painful to look at them. Imagine what it felt like to be one of them--so disfigured.

___They went to the Ford Motor Company and said: Change the design. Ford had a board meeting supposedly in which they said: Change the design? Do you know what that is going to cost us? The heck with it. Let's pay the damages that come from lawsuits. That is the way it goes sometimes.

___The automobile is not intended to be a lethal weapon, and we lose a lot more from fewer of these gun manufacturers every year than we do manufacturers of cars. We lose over 28,000 people a year, 11,000 of them homicides, the rest suicides, accidents. That is what happens. We have millions of cars on the road, and we do not have much more of a mortality rate with those cars than we have with these weapons. But we do not try to protect the automobile industry.

___We do not try to protect the aviation industry if there is negligence in an air crash. You can bet people have a right and do take advantage of the right to get some redress. They don't want the money, for gosh sakes. They do not want any other families to have to suffer the same humiliating loss they experienced.

___If anyone proposed that we go ahead and say to the airlines: Look, tell you what, for reckless behavior and one of those planes goes down with 200, 400 people on it, we know you really didn't intend to do that, so, therefore, you ought to be excused. We are not going to excuse them, and we should not excuse the gun industry, the people who manufacture these weapons in any form, any shape, disguises for assault weapons that say this really isn't an assault weapon. It passes the specifications test, except if you make an adjustment here in the cartridge carrier or there, it becomes, effectively, an assault weapon. No, we are saying, no, we are not going to punish you for that. Go ahead, be careful because people may not like you, but we are not going to punish you for it.

___That is the situation in which we find ourselves.

___Do we really believe that in this situation these weapons were lost or stolen from this store? It is ludicrous. So we should not pretend we do not know what really happened. What we are doing is closing our eyes to responsible behavior throughout our Nation. It is obvious they sold the Bushmaster to Malvo under the table, or however he got it. It is a pathetic and irresponsible recognition we are giving these people.

___Should Bull's Eye be held accountable for their outrageous actions that resulted in the death of innocent people? The sponsors of this bill say, no, they should not pay for approximately a dozen deaths. The sponsors of this bill say, no, this outlet should not be punished for murder; that, after all, they are okay. They sell things that kill people or close their eyes to the distribution of weapons.

___The sponsors of this bill say, no, if one is negligent, they cannot be held accountable. It says if they are reckless, they cannot be held accountable.

___The bottom line is there are many victims with valid legal claims who will have their lawsuits wiped out. It is outrageous.

___Today we were visited by a policeman from my home State, the town of Orange, NJ. He was shot in an exchange of fire with an assailant. He has a lawsuit in place. He can no longer work at his job. We are saying, too bad. Why were you standing in the way of that bullet when it came? Essentially that is what we are saying: Why did you get in the way of the guy who was going to pull the trigger? You should not have done that. They should not be punished for their complicity by getting a gun for this would-be murderer.

___This bill before us tells Bull's Eye and their cronies in the business, keep up the good work; do not worry about it; in the Senate, we are going to take care of you. We are going to immunize them from wrongdoing.

___Why on God's Earth do they want to immunize these people? I do not understand it. I have seen pretenses at logic that said, well, we will have no gun industry to supply our Army. Baloney. Everybody knows that is a phony argument. They will get their weapons made. We can protect those who make arms for the military and we can make sure they are under better care than we see now.

___The snipers who did the killing wreaked havoc on our society and now we want to reward the gun dealer responsible for illegally giving them their killing weapon with immunity from civil lawsuits. This is absurd.

___This Senate is about to make these sniper victims and their families victims a second time. After all they have gone through and that they are going through, we are going to pass a bill to take away their fundamental legal rights. It is reprehensible. There are so many other people who are going to be denied justice by this bill.

___I want to take a moment to tell the Senate about two brave police officers, one of whom I mentioned earlier, who are going to be victimized by this bill, Ken McGuire and David Lemongello. They are two police officers from Orange, NJ, who were shot and seriously wounded by a criminal who obtained his gun through the negligence of a gun manufacturer and gun dealer in the State of West Virginia. The criminal who shot them was barred from legally buying guns, but he was able to obtain these weapons from a straw purchaser who was sold 12 guns by a West Virginia gun dealer in a single transaction.

___This gun dealer completed the sales in spite of the obvious signs that the purchaser was not buying the guns for himself. The gun dealer admitted he was suspicious of the transaction but turned the other way. Then less than 6 months later, Officers McGuire and Lemongello were shot by one of those weapons.

___Is the police officers' lawsuit against the gun dealer frivolous? A West Virginia judge ruled the officers' claims are supported by West Virginia negligence and public nuisance law and that the officers' case should proceed against the dealer as well as the manufacturer of the gun who imposed no requirements on its dealers to cut large volume sales.

___If this gun immunity bill is passed, the rights of these two brave police officers are abolished. To make matters worse, it will allow other gun dealers to look the other way and complete suspicious sales because, well, there are not any consequences; we cannot be sued for our negligence.

___I want my colleagues to know Officer Ken McGuire is in the Capitol today. He is here to ask Senators not to take his rights away, and I ask my colleagues to give him a moment of their time if he approaches you.

___These lawsuits are the only real way to hold these rogue dealers accountable because current laws regulating dealers are a joke. The ATF is restricted to only one announced inspection per year.

___In reference to Bull's Eye, I heard the Senator from Idaho say the shop is shut down now. He is very careful with the things he said, but I think he made a mistake. It just is not true. Bull's Eye took advantage of the weak gun dealer laws and merely transferred its license. They are very much in business. My staff called Bull's Eye today and they said they are open until 7 p.m. It does not sound to me as though they are closed. So if someone from the Senate wants to make a quick trip over there today to pick up an assault weapon, they have until 7 Pacific time to do so.

___There are a host of other cases that would be affected if this bill is passed. Supporters of this bill will be trampling the rights of innocent victims who only want their day in court, to which I think they are entitled.

___The supporters of this bill claim the lawsuits against the gun industry are frivolous. Frivolous? Ask Denise Johnson whether her lawsuit is frivolous. She lost her husband at the hands of the DC area snipers. On the morning of October 22, 2002, Denise Johnson said goodbye to her husband Conrad with her usual ``be careful.'' Neither he nor her children had any idea this would be their last words to their husband and father.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

__This 35-year-old bus driver was shot on October 22 in Silver Spring, MD. He was standing at the top step of his empty bus when he was hit. He was killed instantly by the Bushmaster portrayed here that Bull's Eye ``lost'' to Lee Malvo.

___Some have the impression it is only the DC sniper victims and Officers McGuire and Lemongello from New Jersey who would have lawsuits blocked by this bill. Unfortunately, there are many other victims of gun violence with valid cases who would have their suits dismissed. I ask the sponsors why do they want to do that? Why? Loss of a family member? Perhaps it is the principal breadwinner in the family. Should we have the family suffer from now newly found poverty and doing without the capacity to pay the rent, perhaps be evicted from their homes? Why do we want to punish them a second time? Was it not enough they suffered like that the first time? We want to cut away from them their right to have redress for what took place.

___There is Tenille Jefferson. Her 7-year-old son was killed by another child with a .44 caliber rifle. This tragic shooting occurred because the gun ended up in the streets after being negligently sold through a gun dealer to an illegal drug user and gun trafficker.

___Then there is Sherilyn Byrdsong who lost her husband, former college basketball coach Rick Byrdsong, when he was shot and killed as he walked with their children in Evanston, IL. The crime was committed by a white supremacist, Benjamin Smith, who targeted minorities in a shooting spree through Illinois and Indiana. Even though Smith was prohibited from buying guns, he was able to obtain a gun because of the actions of a reckless gun dealer.

___This reckless dealer sold one gun trafficker over 70 handguns in less than 2 years, almost all of them Saturday night specials, commonly used by criminals. Mrs. Byrdsong's lawsuit is pending in a State court in Chicago. Other victims of this same shooter have joined the lawsuit. If this bill passes, their lawsuits are wiped out. I cannot understand why we would want to do that in this, the Capitol of this Government of our great country. I can't understand why we are bent on taking away people's rights and making them suffer because of a special interest group that has a special reach to those in this Senate and the House who say: We have to take care of this industry. This is an essential industry. We want this. Maybe we can build this into a major industry, make it bigger than it is, sell more guns.

___That is hardly a way to see a productive existence in a society that essentially has respect for the law.

___The Reverend Stephen Anderson, a minister shot during this spree I was talking about, on his way to join his family in a Fourth of July celebration, would have his lawsuit dismissed. Steven Kuo, a graduate student at the University of Illinois, would have his rights taken away. Hillel Goldstein, one of several Orthodox Jews shot when walking home from temple services, would have his family's lawsuit terminated.

___There are other cases that would be dismissed--the parents of 15-year-old Kenzo Dix, who was shot and killed unintentionally by a 14-year-old friend because the gun lacked well-known safety features. The boy thought his father's pistol was unloaded as he had emptied the magazine. Had the gun included an indicator that alerted him that a round was in the chamber, or an integral lock that would have prevented him from firing, Kenzo would not have been killed. But Kenzo's parents' case would be terminated by this bill.

___The family of Joan Moore, who was shot and killed by a mentally deranged man in the town of Belle, WV, would have their suit dismissed. Her family brought suit for negligence against the gun dealer who sold a 9 mm rifle to Moore's killer, 18-year-old Robert Copen. Mr. Copen stood in the gun shop's parking lot all day in plain sight, smoking marijuana before he entered the store. He apparently acted so oddly while in the store that an employee asked his supervisor if Copen should be trusted with a gun. Management told the employee to go ahead and make the sale anyway.
_This gun dealer was clearly negligent. But Mrs. Moore's family would lose their rights under this bill.

___This Senate looks as if it wants to administer a second punishment because the first punishment was not severe enough. It is shocking to believe this could take place.

___Since when is Congress in the business of rewarding the worst in our society? Why would we want to send a message that says: Circumvent the law, put our families in danger, and we are going to protect you?

___The reality is that the gun industry engages frequently in improper conduct with deadly consequences. We have seen many examples of this. Corrupt dealers who frequently sell to criminals would be immune. Straw purchasers who work with rogue gun dealers to obtain guns for people who are not eligible to buy guns would be immune. Dealers who engage in large volume sales, such as the Illinois dealer who sold 60 Saturday night special handguns to one customer, would be immune.

___And, of course, there is the problem of gun shows, where criminals and terrorists can buy guns without background_checks.

___As many here know, the Senate passed my gun show amendment with the help of Vice President Gore, a 50-50 tie in 1999. But the House Republicans killed the provision in conference. They were not willing to shut down dealers who are not required to get any data about a purchaser--no names, no addresses, no pictures, nothing, not even a fingerprint.

___If the NRA immunity bill is signed into law--and I call it the NRA immunity bill deliberately because that is who we are servicing today. We are not servicing this list of people who had the punishment we have seen, punishment that should never be permitted to be put upon a family, a loss of a child, a loss of a husband, a loss of a wife or mother. We should not do that. But if the NRA immunity bill is signed into law, victims of industry recklessness will be denied their day in court.

___It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me, and I am sure it doesn't make sense to people across the country. And I hope they are listening. People across the country have to understand what we are doing. We are protecting an industry that provided the murder weapon to kill lots of people. Why in the world do we want to protect those people? If your behavior is bad, no matter what the product is, if it is a toy, if it is a crib or otherwise, and it is made improperly, you pay a price for it. I come from a State where pharmaceutical manufacturers are a giant industry. Let a pharmaceutical manufacturer put the wrong ingredient in the capsule which hurts somebody's health, they go to court. They are very conscious of that. They are very much afraid of the repercussions of a lawsuit. That is what makes people pay attention. It does it in that industry. It does it in all other industries.

___But we want to exempt this one industry for their noble behavior, for their concern for human life, for their concern for jobs, I heard earlier. The Senator from Illinois scoffed at it and said: Oh, I didn't know we were talking about a jobs bill.

___Why don't we make hand grenades and distribute them freely? You could get people to do that.

___This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, it is not about common sense but, rather, it is about dollars and cents. It is about political support on the outside. It is about nasty mail campaigns. It is about the deterioration of common sense and collegiality. It says: Look, I don't owe my constituents all that. What I do owe is I owe some special interest friends of mine who helped author the legislation in the House that applies to this. We know the role that the NRA plays in financing political campaigns. It seems as if it is paying off for them right now.

___Thankfully, there are still people here who see their responsibility differently, who will stand up for principle, who will do all they can to prevent this unconscionable piece of legislation from passing. We have friends on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans. This isn't the special property, the unique property of Republicans. It is people who are not looking clearly at the problem, who are not willing to say: Hey, I can catch a little abuse from the NRA and its membership and its friends.

___I took a lot of it in my previous term in the Senate. But we did take gun permits away from spousal abusers. Some 40-plus thousand were denied gun permits because of a piece of legislation we passed. Does anybody regret that fact? I wonder, if we asked the question, do you, sir/ma'am, regret the fact that we have taken away those permits from those spousal abusers, permission to buy guns, permits.

___I wonder if you feel badly about that, and about other things that try to curb gun violence.

___This bill takes away a critical tool in the fight to eliminate gun violence. It is comparable, in my view, to taking away medication from doctors trying to treat a deadly disease, perhaps to prevent death, or immobility, or mental fatigue in a person without proper medication. Why do we not want to prevent the possibility that someone can be permanently injured or incapacitated?

___What are the symptoms of this disease? In the year 2000, there were more than 28,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States. About 11,000 were homicides. These deaths and injuries cost an estimated $2.3 billion a year in lifetime medical expenses alone, much of which is borne by the U.S. taxpayer. The total societal cost of firearms is much higher--an estimated $100 billion a year--and the cost to families cannot be measured.

___But we know this: The bill on the floor today is a direct attack on people who have already suffered a tragedy. This bill is an embarrassment to the Senate, to our Government, and our Nation, and it ought not to be permitted to go forward.

___I ask my colleagues one thing. Before you cast your vote on this bill, spend a second thinking about a child's face who learns that daddy is dead, or about a father's face when he learns that his child is dead--killed not by nature or something that perhaps could not be prevented. Much of this can be prevented. Think about these victims. Give them their fair consideration before you victimize them once again.

___I hate to think that this wonderful body in which I am privileged to serve would want to inflict punishment on those who have already suffered so deeply, or who will suffer so deeply by protecting those scoundrels who break the rules with reckless behavior. Imagine what is being said--that even if you are reckless, you are going to be immunized by this legislation. Negligence is bad; reckless is unacceptable under any condition.

___I hope I am talking for the majority of those so we can get a vote against this bill.

___I yield the floor.

 

[cordex]

Darn it. After reading the title I was hoping the transcript would read something like

LAUTENBERG on the senate floor
Unidentified Voice 1: Keep kicking!
Unidentified Voice 2: Don't let 'im get up! He'll try to attach another amendment!
Assorted sounds of very expensive leather shoes being applied to fellow politicians

 

[Boats]

I certainly now pity every freedom loving person in New Jersey--all 342 of you.

 

[HankB]

Harry Tuttle - what have I ever done to you?

You post comments by Lautenberg and that batty woman from California . . . who's next, Chuckie Schumer?

Don't you know what this is doing to my blood pressure?