Angie Craig: “The Senator knows I am only responding to a comment he made. I am simply suggesting that for the next few moments he…”

“The Senator knows I am only responding to a comment he made. I am simply suggesting that for the next few moments he might wish to read that subsection. Here we are not dealing with product liability. It appeared the Bushmaster tragically operated very well. What is at hand is, Are the people at Bull's Eye involved in wrongdoing? That is the question at hand. And should we go after them? We are carving that out in a way so that the victims can go after them if they are found guilty of a Federal violation. Let me read what CRS suggests the Daschle-Craig amendment does: In the case at hand-- They are referring to the DC snipers-- it has been asserted that the firearm-- And we can only say ``asserted'' at this moment because it is under investigation-- it has been asserted that the firearm used in the D.C.-area sniper shootings ``disappeared'' from Bull's Eye's place of business ``[o]n or about August or September of 2002,'' and was not reported as missing until November 5, 2002. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6) a licensee-- That is Bull's Eye-- is required to report the theft or loss of a firearm within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. Thus, in the event that it is established that Bull's Eye was aware that the firearm was missing from its inventory more than 48 hours prior to November 5, 2002, the amendment would appear to lend further support to the application of the exception to immunity under 4(5).”