Yesterday, in a fit of blithering idiocy, Hillary Clinton vomited the following upon her Twitter feed: "If toy companies are held accountable for endangering our kids, gun makers should be too. Let's end their immunity."
She made the comments in reference to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - a law, signed by George W. Bush, that's become a sort of flash point for the foamy-mouth gun-grabber crowd.
Here's the original tweet:
If toy companies are held accountable for endangering our kids, gun makers should be too. Let's end their immunity. pic.twitter.com/JHURkads8v
In pointing out that Hillary's "immunity" claims are false, Politifact sums up the law like this:
The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law.
...The law lists several situations that are not protected from liability. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective.
"The statement is incorrect insofar as it suggests that gun makers are totally free from liability," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who specializes in gun law.
In pointing out that Hillary's claims are false, Politifact sums up the law like this:
The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law.
...The law lists several situations that are not protected from liability. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective.
"The statement is incorrect insofar as it suggests that gun makers are totally free from liability," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who specializes in gun law.
In other words, the law says that a manufacturer and dealer can't be held accountable for the criminal use of their product - provided the sale was legal and the weapon didn't malfunction. That's an oversimplification, but it's the gist of it.
Hillary's right that we can sue toy companies, but those suits only have weight if the toy in question is designed or manufactured in such a way that it hurts kids through regular use. For example: If you buy a stuffed bear, and the eye pops off suffocating a child, a suit against the manufacturer may have merit. If you murder or injure a person by ramming Beanie Babies down their throat, it doesn't.
Support Canada Free Press
Ask yourself this: If you beat someone to death with a baseball bat, should the victim's family be able to sue Louisville Slugger and Dick's Sporting Goods? If the freak next door slices a tomato, a tin can, and then stabs you, do you go after Ginsu? If you intentionally run down a pedestrian in your new Miata should Mazda be held liable? Obviously, no. You go after the perpetrator of these crimes, not manufacturer of the implement used.
So, what's Hillary's game? Is she really stupid enough to think that Perazzi should be sued because Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington in the face? Of course not. She's none too bright, but even she probably understands that this is ridiculous.
This little ploy is all part of the undeniable fact that the gun-hating left knows it's losing its battle against the 2nd Amendment. Ownership is way up, while support for gun control has plummeted. They know they'll never be able to achieve their hoplophobic goals via legislation, so they're thinking "hey, maybe we can sue gun companies into oblivion."
That won't work either, but it's good statist boilerplate. The Democrat frontrunner is an accomplishment free failure who's losing the support of her base to a 74-year-old committed socialist. Mrs. Clinton has apparently decided that a little anti-gun propaganda will drag them back.
Who knows? It might even work. ...But that doesn't make it any less stupid.
Yesterday, in a fit of blithering idiocy, Hillary Clinton vomited the following upon her Twitter feed: "If toy companies are held accountable for endangering our kids, gun makers should be too. Let's end their immunity."
She made the comments in reference to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - a law, signed by George W. Bush, that's become a sort of flash point for the foamy-mouth gun-grabber crowd.
Here's the original tweet:
