Letter from my Senator (Cantwell-WA)

[Langenator]

Response letter I received from Senator Cantwell (D-WA) re: SB 659

--------------------------------

Dear Mr. Langenator:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about ability to
bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers. I appreciate hearing
from you.

As you know, on March 19, 2003, Senator Larry Craig introduced the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S.659). This bill makes it
impossible to bring a lawsuit against a gun seller or manufacturer. The
bill passed the House of Representatives on April 9, 2003, and I expect
that it will be voted on in the Senate later this year.

Under current law, those who make and sell guns, like every other
member of our society, are obligated to use reasonable care in designing and
selling their product, and they may be found liable for the foreseeable
consequences of their failure to do so. For example, in West Virginia,
two police officers are suing a pawnshop that sold a pistol later used
to wound them while on duty (the gun was sold to a "straw purchaser").
The officers' injuries were so severe that they were forced to retire.
In our own state it has recently been revealed that since 1997, Bull's
Eye, a Tacoma gun store that was the source of the stolen rifle used in
the sniper shootings in Washington, D.C., had sold guns involved in 52
major crimes, and cannot account for over 200 guns. This legislation
would make it impossible to file suit against similar negligent sellers.

While I do not believe that lawsuits are always the answer, I also do
not support a blanket liability exemption for any single business
sector. I am committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, and I know
that recreational use and collection of guns for hunting, sport, and other
activities is extremely important to you and many other law-abiding
Washingtonians. However, I also respect the ability of courts to
determine when an individual has failed to exercise reasonable care and has
negligently allowed guns to fall into the hands of criminals.

As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the
legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to
support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our
communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be
simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter
enforcement of existing laws. I value the input of responsible gun buyers and
sellers in forming common sense gun policy. That is why after
consulting with the law enforcement community in Washington state, I was proud
to cosponsor and vote for a bill to allow active and retired law
enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons throughout the country.

Again, thank you for contacting me with your views. Please do not
hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,

Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

 

[Langenator]

And my response:

-----------------
Senator Cantwell,

After reading your reply to my letter concerning SB
659, I come away feeling that you do not fully
understand the bill or the threat to the freedoms
guaranteed by the Second Amendment that these lawsuits
by groups such as the Brady Campaign represent. SB
659 does not offer protection from lawsuits in the
case of defective design or manufacture, or willfully
negligent or criminal acts on the part of
manufacturers or sellers.

Flaws in either design or manufacture of firearms tend
to be very obvious. One possibility is that a firearm
either fires without the trigger being pulled, or
fails to fire when the trigger is pulled. A more
catastrophic possibility is that, due to some
structural weakness, the firearm cannot contain the
pressure of the cartridge being fired and the gun may
explode. In these cases, consumers would be justified
in suing the manufacturer, and SB 659 would allow them
to do so.

In the case of Bull's Eye, if there were evidence of
criminal negligence or willful criminal conduct, then
yes, they should be open to be sued. If such evidence
existed, then I would expect criminal charges to be
filed against the shop and its owner. To this point,
neither the Department of Justice nor the BATFE have
filed such charges. A further point is that one of
the suspects, Malvo, has told police that he STOLE the
rifle. So again we see a retailer being held
responsible for a criminal act committed by someone
else.

The point of SB 659 is to stop the lawsuits that are
aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry through
huge legal bills. Already, just the threat of such
lawsuits impose massive liability insurance costs on
firearm makers-in some cases, such as that of Olympia
based Olympic Arms, forcing them to purchase such
insurance from overseas. Where there is criminal
conduct, the law would still allow victims to sue, but
it would stop the nuisance lawsuits.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on
this issue.

------------------------

The fight goes on......