On the recordJuly 27, 2005
The costs incurred by the gun industry in defending these lawsuits is staggering. Indeed, the costs are so great that Beretta USA, an American company that supplies weapons for the U.S. Armed Forces, has written to me claiming that their ``ability to continue operations is threatened by these lawsuits.'' That is from the letter I placed in the Record. Without a doubt, I think some reasonable measure of tort reform is necessary to protect the manufacturers. However, I must say I am deeply concerned about the broad scope of this litigation in other areas. In my view, it will undoubtedly have unintended consequences, but it is likely that we in the Senate will not be able to recognize some of these inequities until they occur. However, experiences in my State of Virginia make it clear to me that there is currently one unintended consequence in the bill as drafted that, if not corrected now, could impose a glaring inequity. It is absolutely clear that this bill, if it had become law in a previous Congress, would have prevented certain lawsuits brought by victims of the snipers who wreaked havoc in the Virginia, DC, and Maryland area. In particular, this bill would have prevented the victims and their families from ever having their day in court, to sue a gun dealer, from which the snipers John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo illegally received their weapon. The facts surrounding this gun dealer continue to amaze me.…
Source
govinfo.gov




