Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Gun Manufacturers Liability Bill From the Senate Floor March 2, 2004 Mr. President, I wish to speak today on the bill before us, S. 1805, and some of the amendments relating to firearms that have been offered to it. Listening to the debate on this issue, the American people might get the impression that there are just two sides to the gun debate: On one side are those who view the right to bear arms as absolute and oppose any proposals that could remotely be considered as restrictions on that right. On the other side are those who view gun use as an evil in our society that must be limited in any way possible. Sometimes the rhetoric gets turned up so high that reasoned analysis and debate is obscured. That is unfortunate. I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of ``you're with us, or you're against us.'' Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the Second Amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes--for hunting and sport and for self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not infringe on constitutional rights. I supported the Brady bill requiring background checks of gun purchasers. I have voted in favor of closing the gun show loophole that unacceptably increases the danger that a gun will fall into the hands of a criminal. And I support child safety locks and other measures to make firearms less dangerous to gun owners and their families. These are reasonable measures that do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use guns. On the other hand, I have long opposed banning handguns, requiring national gun registration, and restricting the rights of young adults to own guns even if they are well trained and operating under adult supervision. I believe that prohibiting certain types of weapons is problematic as well. Although I voted for the ban on certain kinds of semi-automatic weapons in 1994, I have come to believe that it is a largely arbitrary and symbolic measure. Citizens see it as a first step towards confiscating their firearms. I will, therefore, vote against its reauthorization. Finally, on the bill before us, I do not believe that granting special liability protection to the gun industry is necessary to protect the right to bear arms. There is no evidence that liability lawsuits threaten the existence of the gun industry in America. I believe it would be a mistake to impose a nationwide standard of tort liability on this industry that is more lenient than the standard that applies to the manufacturers or suppliers of any other product. The gun industry, like other industries, owes a duty to consumers of reasonable care, and juries of citizens are best able to define that standard as they do in tort cases of every imaginable type every day in this country. Giving sweeping liability protection will cut off the rights of those injured by negligence and set a very dangerous precedent for how Congress treats corporate wrongdoers. I will, therefore, vote against S. 1805. I realize that many have very strong feelings about gun issues. But I also believe that most Americans favor a moderate approach. That is the approach I intend to follow. My votes will not satisfy those on the extremes of this debate, but I believe they reflect the commonsense views of reasonable Americans who regret that this issue has become the subject of such overheated rhetoric.

# # #