Posted on 04/10/2016 9:17:52 AM PDT by MtnClimber
It is somewhat amusing watching two Democrats battle it out over firearms. Hillary Clinton has been attacking Bernie Sanders over his answer regarding lawsuits against firearm manufacturers due to the criminal acts perpetrated by others.
Currently, firearm manufacturers and firearms dealers are covered under the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act which became law under President George W. Bush in 2005. It became necessary when states and cities began filing lawsuits against the manufacturers. Critics said they were attempting to make law through litigation, and they were right. The lawsuits were punctuated with demands that dealers track guns they sell and that manufacturers implement certain “safety” features.
Sanders, to his credit, has previously spoken out against such lawsuits, and only just recently said he supports certain portions of the law being repealed.
Hillary, aside from hitting Bernie on the issue, has also spoken out against manufacturer's claiming (falsely), “..."the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.” What “behavior” she was speaking of is a mystery. But there are some important things to be considered when people on the Left want to do what they do best: open up avenues for their trial lawyer friends to sign on to more lucrative class action lawsuits. In addition, having lost the Second Amendment battle in the eyes of the public, Congress and the judiciary, the Left is seeking out new ways to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights.
The lawsuits the Left wants to file have nothing to do with justice. They are all about figuring out a way to either put some firearms manufacturers out of business or make it that much more difficult for people to acquire firearms through ever increasing prices.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
Molon Labe!
If a product is unsafe for its intended use then you can sue the manufacturer for product liability. If someone misuses a product then you cannot, no matter how badly someone mususes it.
You cannot sue beer and automobile manufacturers because you were hit by a drunk driver.
Trying real hard arent they
The "Conspiracy Against Rights" Law, Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241.
It says: Any Two or More Persons - who conspire to deprive a citizen of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (like the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights), may be held personally responsible for damages. If these public officials conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate ANY PERSON in ANY STATE, Territory or District in the free exercise of any Right secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, that public servant(s) can be found guilty, and can be punished by up to 10 years in jail.")
A pretty good discussion on FR can be found here
It is not a folly, since Uncle Sugar has unlimited funds that can severely impact the legal costs incurred by a defending gun company.
The alternative to conspiracy against rights is the notion that government officials (elected or not) can be sued for criminal damages when the result of the officials’ acts (intentionally or not) deprive the citizen of their rights.
Because lawmakers and bureaucrats cannot be held liable, they have no fear of being stupidly wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.