|
...that the NRA endorses is not all that great. His work to kill the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (see below) did not help him any either as far as an NRA endorsement is concerned, nor does his aligning himself with Sarah Brady and the Million Mom Marchers. The Assault Weapons Ban is pretty much a red herring as it is a ban on certain cosmetic features. And no, the AW ban has nothing to do with machine guns; they have been illegal for most people since 1934.
Representative Dingell often gets an endorsement from the NRA for the work (see below) that he does and legislation he supports.
*******************************
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 659
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 19, 2003
Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BOND, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TALENT, and Mr. THOMAS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:
(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.
(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and 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.
(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.
(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
(a) IN GENERAL- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS- The term `engaged in the business' has the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied to a seller of ammunition, means a person who devotes, time, attention, and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.
(2) MANUFACTURER - The term `manufacturer' means, with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.
(3) PERSON- The term `person' means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity.
(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT- The term `qualified product' means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code), including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.
(6) SELLER- The term `seller' means, with respect to a qualified product--
(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such an importer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;
(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code; or
(C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail level, consistent with Federal, State, and local law.
(7) STATE- The term `State' includes each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
(8) TRADE ASSOCIATION- The term `trade association' means any association or business organization (whether or not incorporated under Federal or State law) that is not operated for profit, and 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified product.
**************************************
August 1, 2000
The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Reno:
I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June 4, 2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely enforcement of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous importance to the Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun violence, reports such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of the Administration on this front.
As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped 536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an impressive record. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down on gun criminals and prevent crime. However, stopping the sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is only one component of an effective strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and domestic abusers who attempt to purchase a firearm is the other half of the equation.
The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700 defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.
As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense. In simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category of prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly falsify the purchase application.
Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.
If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we have final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected applications, totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted. That equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998, for every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only one federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these cases are difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former federal prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private practice, that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street."
Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not hard to understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax in enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better understand why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following questions:
Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are indicated in the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table 1,"Firearm suspects declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by reason for declination, 1998," some of the reasons listed for not prosecuting known gun criminals include: minimal federal interest and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find this very curious. Please tell me:
What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18 U.S.C(a)(6)?
Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute those who violate federal firearms laws?
Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those who violate federal firearm laws?
Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute was "weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual case, I would note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a false statement on ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473 requires the prospective purchaser to state whether or not he/she is disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Furthermore, each disqualifying criterion is listed on Form 4473 and requires a yes or no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by the prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires many other identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if an individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a prospective purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a document in an attempt to obtain a firearm, that is a violation of U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to me that this should be a relatively open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of firearm "nearly 3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under felony indictment." Therefore, it follows that over 150,000 individuals committed a federal felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting Office report on the Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S Attorneys filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend. Please explain the lack of federal prosecutions for false statements on ATF Form 4473. Also explain towhat degree "weak evidence" contributes to the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys to prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.
Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement policies regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It states:
In November 1998, EOUSA provided Brady Act prosecutive guidance . . . The guidance stated that thousands of potential Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field offices annually, and that the system "would grind to a halt if ATF investigated all the denials."
The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance recommended that U.S. Attorneys should "make every effort to increase the number of Brady false-form prosecutions (from the current annual level of 50 cases)."
The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form violations to forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those cases where the "denied purchaser’s criminal history has records of violent felonies, serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms convictions." Yet the GAO report indicates that over half of the referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or prosecution.
In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the following:
Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed without investigation or prosecution?
What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to increase the number of false form prosecutions? Has EOUSA issued any additional guidance regarding 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations have been referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field offices?
How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have U.S. Attorneys undertaken since the November 1998 EOUSA guidance?
I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are disqualified from firearm ownership, give up their search to obtain a firearm. Please explain why U.S. Attorneys are unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) even for violent felons who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant Director in charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI testified that the law prohibiting felonious misrepresentation of firearm eligibility "is essentially unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement and explain why your representative characterized this law as such? Do you share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please comment on the enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have your staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at (202) 225-4071.
With every good wish,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
