In 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA), passed by Congress. The act protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability for the actions committed by criminals using firearms. The act does specify 6 exceptions in which a gun dealer or manufacture can be held liable, but those exceptions specify that they are guilty of knowingly providing firearms for the purpose of committing a crime, violation of state or federal law, breach of contract and design flaws resulting in injury or death.
The law was passed to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from overzealous lawsuit happy liberals who wanted to sue them out of business. The idea was that if liberals couldn’t legislate stricter gun control then perhaps they could make it too costly for gun manufacturers and dealers to remain in business. By trying to make them liable for the use of their firearms, liberals hoped to destroy the industry and rid the nation of guns. The NRA stepped in to help gun manufacturers and dealers to get conservative and patriotic members of Congress to take action to protect them from the anti-Second Amendment attacks of the liberals and Bush was more than willing to sign the act into law.
In the wake of the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, liberals are once again attacking the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. Hillary Clinton just declared that as president she would work to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act so that all gun manufacturers and dealers could be held liable for the actions of criminals using their firearms.
Think about this for a moment. Using Hillary’s logic, then we should pass laws to make auto manufacturers and dealers responsible when someone uses a vehicle in the commission of a crime. Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc. should be liable when someone intentionally runs someone else over or wrecks a car and injuries others after a high speed chase with police. It sound absurd, but that’s the exact same logic that Hillary is using against gun manufacturers and dealers.
Let’s not forget that there are thousands of stabbings in the US every year. Using Hillary’s logic, we should make knife manufactures like Buck, Case, Becker, Benchmade, KA-BAR and others, responsible when some thug pulls out a knife and stabs someone out of anger or to support a drug habit. Whenever a wife, husband, or other relative gets mad at a family member and stabs them, does it make sense to run to the nearest courthouse and sue Cutco?
What about the makers and sellers of insecticides or antifreeze? These are commonly used to poison someone. Do we hold them accountable when a spouse uses their product with the intent to murder their husband or wife?
How many people in the US are beaten or killed by things like baseball bats, metal pipes, paper weights, hammers and other tools? The list of companies that could be held liable for the actions of others would eventually include virtually every form of product manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer. Our courts would be more flooded with lawsuits than they are now and the cost of everything would skyrocket to offset the legal costs involved.
Holding gun manufacturers and dealers liable for the actions of criminals has absolutely nothing to do with reducing gun violence and mass shootings in America. It has everything to do with disarming the American people.
Don’t forget that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she signed the UN Small Arms Treaty which would have banned virtually all hunting, sport, target, and self-defense firearms. The purpose behind her universal background checks is so the government will know who has what weapons. In the past she has endorsed making background checks mandatory for all existing gun owners as well.
Hillary Clinton and her fellow liberals care nothing about preventing gun violence or allowing you to protect yourself. If strict guns laws worked, then why do cities like Chicago and Baltimore have so many shootings and homicides? Why did violent crimes skyrocket in Australia when they banned private ownership of most guns? What about all the times when someone used a gun to stop a mass shooting? What about the hundreds of times homeowners have used a gun to protect themselves and their family against intruders? I’ve reported many cases of this happening. Clinton and Obama would rather these homeowners and their families end up as victims, injured, raped or murdered by intruders rather than give them the ability to prevent it from happening.
America has become a very dangerous place to live. In the early days of America, it was also a dangerous place to live. As the nation expanded, they had many violent encounters with Indians as well as evil settlers. That’s why Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house.” Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432.
When Jefferson drafted the Virginia state constitution, he added this provision:
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).” Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
But that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden want to do. They are dead set on denying every American the right to bear arms and to protect themselves, their families and their homes. It’s not about crime, it’s about control.