Testimony Of James. E. Chambers, Lieutenant General, USAF (Ret), Executive Director Of The Sporting Arms And Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc. Before The House Committee On Government Reform, Subcommittee On Criminal Justice, Drug Policy And Human Resources
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me here to present the firearms industry perspective on the issue of a possible federal lawsuit against gun manufacturers. I believe, as do many legal experts and leaders in other industries, that a government lawsuit such as the one being contemplated by Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo sets a dangerous precedent that will serve to undermine and erode the power of Congress, while opening up whole sectors of the U.S. economy to a debilitating free-for-all of class-action lawsuits.
First, let me briefly explain the background of my organization. SAAMI is an association of the nation's leading manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition, and components. Founded in 1926 at the urging of President Calvin Coolidge and Congress, SAAMI is the primary organization that represents the sporting arms and ammunition manufacturers before the U.S. government. Our mandate is to work as a critical link between the firearms industry and government to develop, test, and adopt technical standards for firearms and ammunition, while taking a leading role in the safe and responsible use of a firearm. I want to emphasize that our organization has spent millions of dollars on firearms safety. The shooting and hunting sports collectively generate in excess of $30.9 billion annually. This translates into more than 986,000 jobs.
We are seeing a very disturbing trend in this country. Trial lawyers have created alliances with state, local, and now administration government officials and are attempting to use lawsuits, or the threat of a lawsuit, to dictate increased regulation of the gun industry not sanctioned by Congress. I think this is best summed up by a statement former labor secretary Robert Reich recently wrote in USA Today: "The era of Big Government might be over, but the era of regulation through litigation has just begun." Mr. Chairman, that should scare us.
At this moment we have trial lawyers running around the country trying to convince states attorneys general, city mayors and housing authorities to jump on the lawsuit bandwagon. Their sales pitch is an irresistible mix of "free money" and public attention: "Let us represent you, we sue for millions, we divvy up any settlement, and you use the new money for roads or schools before the next election." By intoxicating government officials with visions of a cash pipeline pumping out millions of dollars for their use, without having to raise a single tax, the trail lawyers have convinced 24 cities and perhaps a couple of states to join in this legal feeding frenzy.
Gun manufacturers, like the car, film, chemical, or thousands of other industries that make up the U.S. economy produce a legal product. Firearms are enjoyed by tens of millions of people who use them safely and responsibly. Blaming gun manufacturers for the illegal use of their product is ludicrous. Should we blame a car maker when a drunk driver kills a person? Is for example, Kodak, responsible for the illegal use of its film in the vile world of child pornography? Or perhaps we should hold chemical manufacturers responsible for the production of illicit drugs. I think not. But trial lawyers do and law-abiding companies could be facing an avalanche of lawsuits if common sense is not restored to our legal process.
What we are seeing now is an attempt by the trial lawyers and anti-gun organizations to usurp the political process. After having been defeated time after time in their continuing efforts to impose strict gun-control measures within Congress, they have found that using the leverage of a lawsuit and the implied threat of draining a company of millions of dollars in legal fees can advance their agenda much faster and with greater success than through the political process where such issues should be decided. This is a form of legal extortion. The trail lawyers and anti-gun groups are betting that they stand a better chance of convincing a 12-person jury, who are responsible to no one, of their version of the restrictions that gun manufactures and owners should endure. Suddenly, we are finding ourselves confronted with the fact that 12-person juries can supplant the 535 elected members of Congress. I believe this represents a clear violation of our collective civil rights. The courts, as the trail lawyers and some organizations have found, is a perfect mechanism to take the policy issue of guns in our society out of the political sphere and into a setting where they can force settlements on companies that can effect the entire country.
A Wall Street Journal article reporting on Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) exploration of a lawsuit against the gun industry raises serious questions. First, what basis is there for filing a lawsuit against a legal product? Second, considerable damage can be done to the firearms industry if HUD decides to coerce or encourage some or all of the 3,400 housing authorities that receive federal funds to file a similar case. Third, HUD is apparently using outside counsel involved in gun suits to find a nexus for HUD to file a claim. The collusion with trail lawyers and firms that might be involved in suing the firearms industry raises critical policy and ethical questions. HUD has plenty of its own lawyers, paying outside counsel is a waste of taxpayer money. And are we to believe that private trial lawyers will make the best decision for the government, their client in court, or the combination that makes them the most money? Moreover, federal agencies, displeased with their congressional appropriation, will be tempted to sue businesses for massive damage claims thus setting up a revenue stream outside of congressional oversight and spending priorities.
What is important for this committee to understand is that the firearms companies are at the top of trial attorneys' long victim list. Today guns, tomorrow it will be the paint industry, followed by medical suppliers, and even the fast-food industry. The more successful, the more likely the target. Don't make the mistake of thinking that some noble social goal is behind these lawsuits. Let me read a quote from John Coale, a trial lawyer who has played a role in suing gunmakers: "People kept saying that we would go after the alcohol or fast-food industries next…But we would never do that. We enjoy liquor and meat too much." So much, Mr. Chairman, for noble goals.
What can we do? Well, Senator Mitch McConnell has introduced the Litigation Fairness Act, S. 1269. I believe the companion bill will be introduced in the House in the near future. This is a very simple bill. Using Senator McConnell's example, if a person is injured an automobile accident, but could not prove that his or her injuries were caused by a defect in the automobile, than that person can not recover from the manufacturer. S. 1269 says that if the injured party could not recover from the auto manufacturer, than the government should not be allowed to sue the manufacturer to recover the health care expense incurred by the government on behalf of the injured person. This bill would not prohibit lawsuits, nor exempt injured parties from seeking redress in the courts, or place caps, limits, or recoveries on lawyer fees. This common-sense, simple piece of legislation is designed to make sure that the government has no more rights than the average citizen. It will also go a long way to restoring the accountability of elected officials in our democratic process, and make the temptation of creating new revenue streams through lawsuits a lot less desirable.
I have in my hand (HOLD UP) a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a list of businesses and industry trade groups dedicated to passing The Litigation Fairness Act. I want to take this opportunity to urge each member to join us in this effort. I would like to submit this for the record.
On behalf of the thousands of men and women throughout the country who are a part of SAAMI and the sport shooting and hunting industry, I thank you again for holding this hearing. By taking action now to pass the Litigation Fairness Act, we can restore balance and equity to our judicial system while preserving the free market that has brought unparalleled prosperity to millions of Americans.
Thank You.
 |
|
|  |
