Barbara Mikulski: “I have two legal opinions, one from Lloyd Cutler, a very distinguished American lawyer who has served as White House…”

“I have two legal opinions, one from Lloyd Cutler, a very distinguished American lawyer who has served as White House counsel to a President, who says that S. 1805 contains language that would require the dismissal of the Johnson case. I have another legal opinion from Boise, Schiller & Flexner who essentially say the exceptions would only preserve civil claims brought under other kinds of law. Other than that, what they are saying is this would preempt their ability to bring this case. The opinions clearly state that section 4 on page 7 articulated by my esteemed colleague does not hold water. It does not protect the victims of Malvo and Muhammad because it is in such plain English limited to those cases by the name of the perpetrator and predator. This does not create a loophole. Talk about loophole, talk about the gun shield loophole, talk about all the other loopholes in the gun bills. My amendment does not create a loophole. The legal opinions show there is ambiguity in S. 1805 and that section 4 could preempt the ability of these families to bring this case. The distinguished Senator from Idaho has his opinion. I have my two legal opinions that show that there is confusion and honest disagreement about the bill. That is why the Mikulski amendment is necessary, to clear up the ambiguity on the matter of these cases committed by Malvo and Muhammad.”