Mark Udall: “I will vote against this bill, because I do not see why it is necessary or desirable for Congress to act now to restrict…”

“I will vote against this bill, because I do not see why it is necessary or desirable for Congress to act now to restrict just one kind of lawsuit, against just one kind of manufacturer. My reluctance to support such legislation is increased when it not just prospective, but would require the immediate dismissal of cases that are now being considered by the courts. I am not a lawyer, and it seems to me that the courts are in a much better position than I am to decide whether the people bringing these lawsuits have valid claims or whether the complaints are frivolous. It happens that this bill deals with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. But my concerns would be the same if the bill dealt with similar lawsuits against the makers of other consumer products--for example, automobiles, electronic appliances, or toys. During the debate, some of the bill's supporters have argued that firearms manufacturers are different because there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But the freedom of the press is also protected by the Constitution--yet I have not heard anyone say that Congress has to cut off lawsuits against the makers of printing presses or television cameras in order to sustain that right. And, if the lawsuits covered by the bill are contrary to the Constitution, I am confident that the judges--who are sworn to uphold the Constitution--will dismiss them. There is no doubt lawsuits can be costly, and I am not in favor of frivolous lawsuits.…”