For reasons known only to her internal pollsters, Hillary Clinton has decided to very to the most radical of positions on gun control, and decided to make those position the centerpiece of her campaign. She’s celebrated confiscatory “Australian-style” gun control with forced buybacks, bans on the most common handguns, shotguns, rifles and ammunition.
Clinton also desires to dismantle the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects lawful firearms businesses from being sued when criminals misuse guns, accessories, or ammunition to commit crimes. A recent example of companies being protected by PLCAA was when the parents of one of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting attempted to sue the manufacturers of the guns used and retailer of the ammo used, even though those products were purchased lawfully in accordance with all state and federal laws. The judge angrily threw out the frivolous lawsuit, as it was clear that the plaintiffs were attempting to spitefully punish and profit companies that had done nothing wrong.
Nonetheless, Sanders has caved to Hillary’s attack on his flank, and has now spinelessly joined her in attacking a law-abiding industry.
On the eve of the next Democratic debate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his support for legislation that would reverse a 2005 law granting gun manufacturers legal immunity that he once supported.
Sanders’ changed position came in a statement issued after days of attacks from rival Hillary Clinton, who had attempted to use his previous vote to undercut his liberal image.
Sanders’ support for the new legislation included an amendment that would require the federal government to monitor and report on the law’s impact in rural areas to ensure it would not “negatively impact small gun stores in rural America that serve the hunting community.” In the past, he’s linked his support for the 2005 bill to his home state of Vermont, arguing that even though he does not personally own firearms, he did not want to hurt small stores in his state.
Campaign aides said the decision was not a flip-flop, arguing that Sanders backed the 2005 law in part because of provisions that require child safety locks on guns and ban armor-piercing ammunition.
“Those were important provisions that I did support,” Sanders said in a statement.
The Clinton campaign cast the support as a reversal, with chairman John Podesta calling it a “debate-eve conversion” on Twitter. Her campaign has attempted to make the vote a major issue in the race, along with Sanders’ proposal for a single-payer health care system, which Clinton has attacked as unrealistic.
Le’ts make this very clear.
The PLCAA allowed only limited immunity for manufacturers against nuisance lawsuits when people want to sue manufacturers for crimes committed with their guns. The law still allows consumers to sue manufacturers for defective products, breach of contract, and criminal misconduct.
PLCAA was required because gun control groups were attempting to bankrupt gun companies with a wave of frivolous lawsuits that were as absurd as suing car manufacturers for those instances where someone decided to run over a victim with a vehicle.
Sanders’ opposition to Clinton’s radical position on PLCAA had been one of the few bright spots for law-abiding Americans from the committed Vermont socialist.