Angie Craig: “I thank my colleague. Let me read another paragraph from that letter, which I think clearly spells out the fear that my…”

“I thank my colleague. Let me read another paragraph from that letter, which I think clearly spells out the fear that my colleague would wish to step aside from and argue that is simply not the case. He is dealing with a strict liability statute. This paragraph says: Passed in 1991, the D.C. statute had not been used until the District of Columbia recently filed a lawsuit against the firearm industry in an attempt to hold the firearm makers, importers and distributors liable for the cost of criminal gun misuse in the District. Although the Court of Appeals (sitting en banc in the case D.C. v. Beretta U.S.A. et al.) dismissed many parts of the case, it affirmed the D.C. strict liability statute and, moreover, ruled that victims of gun violence can sue firearm manufacturers simply to determine whether that company's firearm was used in the victim's shooting. Now, does that take away the costs involved in the preparation, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now being spent? No, it does not. This was a frivolous lawsuit from the beginning. It was clearly intended. And that is what the district court said. The District of Columbia did not hide it. They were after the industry because they believed the industry had produced the gun that the criminal used in the commission of a crime. So it goes on. I submit this letter for the Record. I think the letter stands on its own. It clearly affirms why we are here on this floor debating S.…”