SALEM, Ore. — A bill that would shield gun makers and dealers from being sued when the firearms they sell are used in crimes drew no opposition at a hearing in front of a House panel yesterday.

Legislative lawyers, though, say the measure is flawed because it clashes with citizens' state constitutional rights to take legal action to seek compensation for injuries.

Rep. Robert Ackerman, D-Eugene, House Judiciary civil-law subcommittee chairman, said the panel will rework the bill to try to resolve the conflict.

Lawmakers need to protect the firearms industry "from frivolous lawsuits aimed to run it out of business," said Rep. Chuck Burley, R-Bend, the bill's main sponsor.

Burley said he hadn't been contacted by any gun-control advocates opposing the measure.

The bill is patterned after a similar measure that was passed by the U.S. House last year but died in the Senate.

The head of the Legislature's legal staff, Dave Heynderickx, said local governments around the nation have brought lawsuits in recent years against gun makers and sellers seeking damages "on various theories" for costs involving illegal firearm use.

He said his office isn't aware of any lawsuits brought by individuals on similar grounds.

Rod Harder, Oregon lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said 33 states have banned legal action by local governments or others claiming that manufacturers or sellers should be held liable in cases involving illegal use of weapons.

The gun industry is at risk of being destroyed, Harder said, "as long as gun-ban organizations, big-city mayors and greedy trial lawyers are allowed to blame the firearm industry for criminal misuse of its products."

The bill also would protect ammunition makers from liability lawsuits for illegal use of their product.

Sen. Frank Morse, R-Albany, a sponsor of the bill, said the possibility of lawsuits has caused costs of liability insurance to soar.

He said a growing Sweet Home ammunition-manufacturing company in which he is an officer has to pay $160,000 a year for $1 million in liability insurance.

Heynderickx said the courts probably would toss out the measure unless it's changed.

In a written opinion, he said the bill conflicts with one of the Oregon Constitution's original provisions that says citizens must have a legal remedy for injuries done to them.

Heynderickx said that under state Supreme Court rulings, lawmakers cannot do away with such rights to sue unless they provide a substitute method for compensating for injuries.

An example of that is the workers'-compensation law, which eliminated injured employees' rights to sue employers by setting up a new administrative system for paying workers who suffer injuries.