Jack Reed: “this law firm analyzed the legislation, and their conclusion is, particularly with regard to the Washington area…”

“this law firm analyzed the legislation, and their conclusion is, particularly with regard to the Washington area snipers, that their cases will be thrown out. There are two sections of the law which provide an exemption from the categorical dismissal of these cases. They are section (5)(A)(ii) and (5)(A)(iii). Mr. President, (5)(A)(ii) says: . . . actions against a seller for ``negligent entrustment'' or ``negligence per se''. . . . And (5)(A)(iii) says: . . . actions against a manufacturer or seller who violated a statute in the sale or marketing of a firearm or ammunition, where that statutory violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. . . . Their analysis concludes that neither of these exemptions would apply in the case of the Washington area snipers. Those cases are already pending. They will be dismissed, thrown out. It is interesting because we continue to talk about, well, these exemptions will take care of all these cases, but it turns out that they will not, that the various nuances, the wording, the knowing violation of a statute, for example, the arcane cases of negligence entrustment and negligence per se, which are constructs that only a lawyer could fully appreciate and enjoy, all of this is craftily designed to prevent people from going to court, not to give them a fair right in court. Again, it goes down not to these nuances, to this legal terminology but simple common sense.…”