Hillary's proposed policy will destroy gun manufacturers. That is what it is designed to do. It would set a precedent that would bankrupt most manufacturers, not just those of guns. No manufacturer can withstand being held accountable for the criminal misuse of their products by other people. No such lawsuits are being attempted, except against gun manufacturers. Once the precedent is set, others will follow. It is the pattern we have seen in tort law for decades.
That is why the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed in 2005. Numerous cities were using tax money to sue firearms manufacturers for the "crime" of existing. The purpose was to drive the manufacturers to bankruptcy. The stated purpose was to bankrupt firearms companies using the unlimited checkbook of taxpayers to file suit after suit, after suit, requiring an expensive defense against all, until the companies were bankrupted. From philly.com in 1998:
``The chances are maximized if enough cities file at one time,'' Rendell said. ``The sheer cost of defending these suits would be hard for the gun industry.''Of course, firearm manufacturers would not be the only manufacturers affected.
The logic is obvious. If gun manufacturers, producing legal products, already heavily regulated, can be sued for the criminal misuse of their products, so can GM. So can Ford. So can McDonalds. It is hard to find a manufacturer who could not be sued in such a hypothetical situation.
Bernie Sanders understood this, and was castigated by Hillary for the obvious truth.
But this is not a play for people who examine claims logically. It is a play for an emotional response to a false claim.
Hillary's claim is that the ability to destroy innocent gun manufacturers would somehow protect the victims of criminals. It is not true.
In Europe, mass killings occur with as much frequency as in the United States, even though the arms that are used have been outlawed there for decades.
The Progressive's gun control schemes have always been emotional instead of fact based.
The public has become more adept at seeing through these emotion based claims. Republicans and Independents are less likely to be fooled, but Hillary's Democrat base is still susceptible.
This is best seen as an attempt to bring out the emotionally driven vote, especially of the Democrat base. It has the risk of ramping up the vote of Second Amendment supporters as well. There are probably seven times as many committed Second Amendment Supporters as committed gun haters.
But most of those are already committed to voting against Hillary Clinton, or for her. Will Hillary's tweet make much difference? Probably not.
But Hillary's tweet does much to verify the NRA claim that Hillary wishes to destroy the viability of the Second Amendment. It is hard to exercise Second Amendment rights when gun manufacturers have been sued out of existence.
The PLCAA protects legal manufacturers from irrational, predatory lawsuits, designed to circumvent the democratic process. Destroying that protection will do nothing to protect families from violent criminals.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch