Jack Reed: “Senator Mikulski is here, doing something that is, unfortunately, necessary because the underlying legislation would…”

“Senator Mikulski is here, doing something that is, unfortunately, necessary because the underlying legislation would cause currently pending suits on behalf of the families and the estates of these victims of the snipers to be thrown out of court. That is not only unfortunate but it is unconscionable. There are arguments that this legislation is crafted so these suits go forward. But that is not the case at all. The two salient facts in the sniper shootings with respect to this legislation are, first, the sniper, Malvo, claims he shoplifted the gun. The storeowner claims that he was unaware of these weapons being missing until he was contacted after the shooting by the ATF. As a result, none of the appropriate exemptions from the preemption to sue would be applicable in this particular situation. There are two particular exemptions that are often pointed to. One talks about the negligent entrustment, which is a theory of law, and negligence per se. None would apply because it requires the defendant to have knowledge of a violation of the statute or knowledge that something untoward would happen. Under the facts as we know them, the defendant alleges he was unaware of the missing weapons. In addition, the other exemption would be if there was a violation of Federal and State statute and that violation was the proximate cause, almost direct or substantial cause of the harm caused to the plaintiff. That, too, can be substantiated.”