mr. speaker , i really wish that today we could exercise our conscience and vote without the interference of the national rifle association . 
i do believe in the second amendment , the bill of rights , that indicates that you are allowed to bear arms ; but this legislation has nothing to do with the first or the second amendments , freedom of expression or the right to bear arms . 
more than 10 years ago , as a member of the houston city council , i passed the first gun safety legislation that held parents responsible for guns in their homes , that children were then able to take and cause a tragedy . 
i remember the physician of the texas medical center , texas children 's hospital emergency room , coming and testifying . 
i remember a parent coming and holding a very limp child , a paraplegic . 
they stood before us and they said this is the result of a shooting by a gun by a child who got the gun because of an irresponsible parent . 
that has not stopped the state of texas and hunters from going to hunt . 
in fact , it has been noted that it saved lives and saved dollars . 
here we now have legislation with a blocked rule that suggests that no one can sue , no one can bring a suit of liability against gun manufacturers , and we are now suggesting that this is embedded in the likes and the hearts of the second amendment . 
is it the second amendment that says to a philadelphia mother who won a settlement of only $ 850 , 000 from a gun dealer who negligently sold multiple guns to a gun trafficker , a child found one of the guns on a street in philadelphia and accidently shot the mother 's 7-year-old son , is there some reason , mr. speaker , we should not have these kinds of lawsuits ? 
is there some reason , mr. speaker , that this now putting forward only a negligence per se exception will , in fact , disallow states like arkansas , louisiana , maine , massachusetts , nebraska , north dakota , rhode island , vermont , washington , west virginia , the citizens in those particular states can not sue at all because they can not meet the standard because there is no such standard as negligence per se ? 
it is unfortunate that the amendments that we were prepared to offer were not accepted ; and as presently written , h.r. 800 makes individuals who sell machine guns , semiautomatic weapons , and large capacity ammunition feeding devices immune from that lawsuit , the same kind of bill that we have here before us . 
in my own state of texas , a san antonio police officer named hector garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence call . 
his assailant was armed with a mac-10 semiautomatic pistol and ak-47 assault rifle . 
the shooter also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg . 
police chief al phillips said that with the fire power the shooter possessed , the incident might have turned into a bloodbath and he could have killed multiple officers . 
this is wrong-headed and misdirected . 
it is time now for us to vote this legislation down . 
what a shame for the nra to buy this congress . 
mr. speaker , i oppose this legislation , s. 397 , the protection of lawful commerce in arms act , just as i did with my colleagues in the case of h.r. 800 in the judiciary committee and h.r. 1036 during the 108th congress . 
just as in the case of the malignant bankruptcy legislation , s. 256 , that finessed itself to the house floor for consideration and then to passage into law , h.r. 1036 passed in committee body last congress without having given many members the opportunity to have very substantive amendments considered -- shielded by `` parliamentary inquiry. '' so too did members have very important proposals to improve this very troubled piece of legislation . 
s. 397 , like its predecessor and house companion in the 108th congress , seeks to shield irresponsible gun manufacturers , vendors , dealers , distributors , and importers from liability under the guise of protection from `` frivolous lawsuits. '' as the democrats of this committee stated quite eloquently in its `` dissenting views '' ( 108-59 ) , courts around the country have recognized that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by this bill are grounded in well-accepted legal principles , including negligence , products liability , and public nuisance . 
these courts have held that those who make and sell guns -- like all others in society -- are obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their product , and that they may be liable for the foreseeable injurious consequences of their failure to do so even if those foreseeable consequences include unlawful conduct by third parties . 
this bill , if enacted , would nullify these decisions , rewriting and subverting the common law of those states , and then , only with respect to a particular industry . 
in the past iteration of this legislation , i offered an amendment that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was harmed as the result of an unlawful transfer of a machine gun , semi-automatic assault weapon , or large capacity ammunition feeding device . 
the u.s. code , in section 922 of title 18 , makes it unlawful for a person from transfer or possess a machine gun , semi-automatic assault weapon , or large capacity ammunition feeding device . 
in addition , before the committee on rules earlier this week , i joined my colleague from california , ms. lofgren xz4002450 in offering an amendment captioned `` lofgre x044 , '' that proposes an additional exception to the definition of `` qualified civil liability action '' for law enforcement officers acting in that capacity . 
this legislation creates very overbroad prohibitions for civil lawsuits against manufacturers , distributors , dealers , or importers of firearms , and this amendment seeks to protect one of many classes of parties that might be aggrieved as a result of firearm use . 
while i do sit on the committee on homeland security , one does not have to sit on this body to know that our first responders need and deserve protection from unintended situations . 
these men and women sit at the front line and are the first to act when our nation is threatened . 
the de minimis effort that we as legislators can give is to protect legitimate claims filed by them in connection with the use of firearms . 
the amendment did not say that gun dealers should be liable simply because they sold a gun that was used in a crime , nor does it say that the families of all 297 officers shot to death between 1997 and 2001 should be able to recover . 
it simply stated that when a gun dealer sells 12 or 50 or 100 guns to a person who is clearly going to turn around and sell those guns on the street , that dealer should be held accountable . 
now , the proponents of this bill may argue that the negligence per se exception protects police officers because it allows suits against dealers who violate other statutes , like the brady act . 
but that is simply not true . 
it would not have protected mr. lemongello , who brought his suit in a state that does not recognize the doctrine of negligence per se . 
i would also point out more than 30 , 000 gun deaths occur each year , so the almost blanket immunization from suit proposed in this legislation represents nothing more than an unwarranted and unjust special interest giveaway to the powerful gun lobby and a shameful attack on the legal rights of countless innocent victims of gun violence . 
never before has a class of persons harmed by the dangerous conduct of others been wholly deprived of the right to legal recourse . 
the lofgren-jackson lee amendment would have protected the right to sue for members of the law enforcement community along with their spouses or next of kin in the event of their wrongful death . 
i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment . 
as presently written , h.r. 800 makes those individuals who sell machine guns , semi-automatic weapons , and large capacity ammunition feeding devices immune from suit . 
it makes no sense that the sellers of weapons that have been banned by congress can avoid civil liability when the guns they sell are used in crimes . 
congress has enacted this ban on machine guns , semi-automatic assault weapons , and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for an obvious reason -- these assault weapons are dangerous . 
the deadly characteristics of semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles was tragically illustrated in my home state of texas . 
a san antonio police officer named hector garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence call . 
his assailant was armed with a mac -- 10 semi-automatic pistol and an ak-47 assault rifle . 
the shooter also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg . 
police chief al phillipus said that with the firepower the shooter possessed the incident `` might have turned into a bloodbath '' and he `` could have killed multiple officers. '' i will offer this amendment because the exceptions to the general ban on lawsuits against gun manufacturers and merchants is too narrow . 
one such narrow exception allows the victims of gun violence to sue a gun seller only if the gun purchaser is subsequently convicted of the gun-related crime . 
this exception is insulting to the victims of gun violence . 
it prioritizes the rights of negligent gun sellers and criminals before the rights of the victims of gun violence . 
h.r. 800 should be amended to allow the victims of gun violence to seek civil damages when there are allegations of wrongdoing . 
under this amendment , the victims of gun violence will not have to wait for a criminal conviction in order to seek justice . 
to make those individuals who sell congressionally banned machine guns , semi-automatic assault weapons , and large capacity ammunition feeding devices liable for their negligent acts . 
i also offer this amendment so that the victims of gun violence can seek civil damages prior to the conviction of the gun purchaser . 
in addition , i will offer an amendment that will exempt from the scope of the bill those lawsuits involving injury or death to minors under the age of 16 . 
as presently written , s. 397 prohibits all civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers , dealers , distributors , and trade associations for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful gun use by the injured person or a third party . 
there are a few limited exceptions to the overall ban . 
however , none of the exceptions in the bill protects the rights of minors , or the parents of minors , to sue for civil damages when a minor is injured or killed by a gun that is negligently or recklessly manufactured or distributed . 
as it is presently written , a gun merchant could negligently or recklessly sell a gun to a criminal . 
that gun could then be used to seriously injure or kill a minor . 
under s. 397 , the negligent gun seller would be immune from any civil liability . 
it is absurd to deny the families of children killed or injured by the negligence or recklessness of gun distributors an opportunity to sue . 
at the very least , the victims of gun violence and their families deserve an opportunity to have their claims heard by a judge and jury . 
it is certainly foreseeable that some guns will accidentally fall into the hands of children and serious injuries or tragic deaths may result . 
those gun distributors and sellers who fail to conduct adequate background checks , or fail to take other measures to ensure that guns to do not fall into criminal hands should not be free from liability . 
gun merchants have a responsibility to conduct their business safely and protect the lives of children . 
when they fail to do so they should be held accountable in a court of law . 
gun manufacturers and merchants should be liable in courts of law when their negligent acts result in the death or injury to a minor . 
mr. speaker , this is a bad bill , and the amendments that strive to make some improvements that will provide relief to parties that need protection were closed out without consideration . 
for the reasons above stated , i reject this legislation and i urge my colleagues to join me . 
