February 25, 2004 Letter to Senators Warner and Allen
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306-8208
February 25, 2004
The Honorable John William Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4601
The Honorable George F. Allen
United States Senate
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4604
Dear Senators Warner and Allen:
As you may know, this week the Senate is expected to vote on legislation that will end lawsuits against firearms and ammunition industries for damages and injuries resulting from guns being used during the criminal acts of third parties. The legislation has 55 cosponsors in the Senate, but I would like you to ensure that the Second Amendment will continue to guarantee the rights of individuals to keep and bear firearms for lawful purposes, and to keep responsibility where it belongs: with the criminals.
Currently, gun control advocates, unable to convince democratically elected legislators that removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens will reduce crime, are attempting to use the courts to impose their views on a skeptical public. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), has introduced S. 659, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevent these lawsuits.
As a family member of someone murdered by a remorseless thug in the commission of an armed robbery, I find victim disarmament disgusting and repulsive. My grandfather’s murder should not be used as a tool by the anti-self defense lobby to disarm lawabiding citizens, making them easier prey for the predatory among the population.
This legislation is essential to protect the Second Amendment rights of all taxpayers. The Second Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear firearms for lawful purposes, however through numerous court cases, exorbitant court costs, and the threat of ruinous judgments, anti-gun activists are attempting to bankrupt a lawful industry.
On average, the gun industry makes only about $200 million in profit, one large judgment, such as the $400 million sought in the city of Chicago’s lawsuit, could bankrupt the entire industry.
The only thing these lawsuits have been successful in is wasting taxpayer dollars. Of the thirty-three municipal suits that have been filed to date, ten have been dismissed by the courts, with six of these cases being fully and finally adjudicated. Every appellate court that has decided a municipal firearms case has ruled in favor of the industry including three state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court. These lawsuits continue the dangerous trend of denying the concept of personal responsibility.
Please support S. 659 and protect the Second Amendment while enacting needed tort reform!
Sincerely,
James Landrith
April 21, 2004
Mr. James Landrith
P.O. Box 8208
Alexandria, Virginia 22306-8208
Dear Mr. Landrith:
Thank you for contacting me to express your views about legislation to reform our tort liability system with respect to the gun industry.
As you know, in the 108th Congress, Senator Craig (R-Id) has introduced two bills, $.659 and S.1805, to reform the tort liability system with regard to lawsuits against gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Recently, the United States Senate considered S.1805. After a week of debate, the bill, as amended, was defeated by a vote of 8-90. I opposed final passage of this legislation.
While I believe that the gun immunity bill considered by the Senate attempted to solve a serious problem that the gun industry faces with lawsuits that may threaten its continued viability, the bill before the Senate was an overly broad measure. The legislation would have given gun manufacturers and dealers expansive new protections under the law which appear unprecedented for almost any other private industry in America. Such broad protections undoubtedly would have had the unintended consequence of locking the courthouse doors for some Americans with legitimate claims.
The most notable example is that of the Washington, DC, area sniper victims and their families. Without speaking to the merits of any specific lawsuit that has been filed in this matter, the victims and
their families of the Washington, DC, area snipers could have been adversely affected by the gun immunity bill. Whether or not the lawsuits filed will ultimately be successful in court, the reported facts of the case are that the DC snipers “stole” a gun from a gun dealer in Washington State that had “lost** over 200 gun in the past three years. The gun immunity bill, if enacted, could have prevented a claim against that Washington State gun dealer even if it was grossly negligent in watching over its firearm inventory. During the Senate’s consideration of S.1805, I supported efforts to clarify language in the bill to ensure that cases such as these would not be barred from receiving consideration in our judicial system. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated.
Moreover, during the Senate’s consideration of S.1805, I offered two amendments in a good faith effort to improve the bill. The first amendment related to the liability of doctors and nurses. My amendment was simple. It said that to the extent we are going to provide broad protections for the gun industry, we should also reform the tort liability system for doctors and nurses by placing reasonable caps on damages in medical malpractice cases. Unfortunately, opponents of my amendment used procedural hurdles in the Senate to prevent my amendment from receiving a vote.
The second amendment I offered to the gun immunity bill was an amendment that I offered with Senator Feinstein (D-Ca) to extend the Assault Weapons Ban for another ten years. This amendment passed the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 52-47.
Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10 year prohibition on the domestic manufacture, transfer, or possession of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. The ten year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods. President Bush has indicated that he supports a straight 10 year extension of this current law.
Some in the Senate, including myself, opposed the ban a decade ago, believing it would do little to reduce crime, and fearing that it could threaten the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners and hunters. However, a decade of experience has provided us with key facts, and, consequently, my opinions on the ban have evolved.
The Assault Weapons Ban has made our communities safer and has not infringed on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Recent Department of Justice records indicate that the use of banned assault weapons in crimes has declined measurably — by 65% in one analysis — since the measure took effect. And, law enforcement officials from across Virginia, and indeed across the United States, have supported an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban because they know it makes America’s communities safer.
Please be assured that I understand your views on this legislation. As a gun owner and hunter, and as a United States Senator privileged to represent the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States Senate, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I will continue to support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns while also protecting the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
John Warner
JW/jsf