Jack Reed: “I appreciate that. I do. But the point is we are taking a legal theory of strict liability, which they are upset about…”

“I appreciate that. I do. But the point is we are taking a legal theory of strict liability, which they are upset about, obviously, and concerned about, but it does not translate to this bill. None of these cases I talked about--Lemongello or the case with respect to Guzman--is arguing these manufacturers or sellers are strictly liable. They are saying, essentially--now there might be other cases-- but they are saying, essentially, they had a duty, they were negligent. This legislation we are debating today would wipe away their rights to make a negligence claim. So I agree entirely with the letter in terms of its accuracy. That is what they are talking about. They are concerned about it. Frankly, if I were the general counsel of Beretta, I would be concerned about it. It might not move me to do the same thing they are suggesting. But we have to be very clear about this legislation, which goes way beyond the strict liability. Again, if we were talking about limiting strict liability suits, this would be an entirely different debate. I do not think I would necessarily agree, but certainly I would be looking at an almost entirely different subject matter. I thank the Senator for being extremely kind in yielding me time and also being extremely accurate in summarizing my views.”