Hillary Clinton needs to stop misleading the American people about gun manufacturers' liability. She persists in talking about the landmark Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but her claims are blatantly false.
Practically every time she and Bernie Sanders have engaged in a presidential primary debate, she threw this in Sanders' face: "(Gun manufacturers) are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."
The comment always draws applause and it throws Sanders -- clearly on the side of right on this one -- on the defensive and under the bus. Every time she says it, her nose grows a little longer.
Clinton wants to paint a picture of Sanders as a closet gun lover from lenient, backwoods Vermont. I get it. If she can get the Democratic base to believe that, she's playing to an advantage in the primary. The truth is, Clinton didn't vote for the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Sanders did.
But, so what? The law doesn't say what Hillary claims it's saying -- she's telling a whopper, over and over and over again.
On Oct. 16, 2015, less than a week and a half after a Town Hall event when she first uttered the bogus claim, Politifact debunked it: "Clinton said the gun industry is 'the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.' Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits," wrote Politifact. "Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry." That's why Politifact determined her rhetoric about the law to be entirely false.
PLCAA was passed in response to dozens of frivolous lawsuits encouraged by the Bill Clinton White House to put gun companies out of business based on circumstances entirely beyond their control.
Think about it. Suing gun companies for criminals misusing their lawfully sold products is akin to suing Stanley Tools if one of their hammers is used in a murder or General Motors for one of its vehicles being used to purposely run someone over. I have no idea why Sanders isn't vehemently pointing this out in every debate -- here's a chance to convey truth to the American people. The point is, this is why, before the federal law was enacted, more than 30 states also passed tort reform laws to stop this pernicious strain of lawsuits designed to bankrupt an entire industry or impose gun control through litigation that Congress and the American public simply don't support.
I'm assuming Hillary Clinton, as an attorney and U.S. senator who voted on the law, understands this perfectly but just doesn't care to share the truth with the millions who watch the Democratic presidential debates. Is this a measure of her conscience? So much for honesty.
The bill expressly allows lawsuits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by a defective firearm.
"The statement is incorrect insofar as it suggests that gun makers are totally free from liability," says Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who specializes in gun law.
Congress has regularly passed limitations on liability for other industries, including small-aircraft manufacturers, Internet service and content providers and vaccine-makers. Without these protections, many of America's most critical industries would go out of business from the time and costs of frivolous lawsuits.
Individuals who sell and purchase firearms illegally give the industry a bad name and hurt the reputation of law-abiding manufacturers and owners, no question about it. But the PLCAA provides them no safe harbor. My question for Hillary is, what's the real reason you didn't vote for the PLCAA? On the other hand, it's apparently convenient now, during the campaign, when she can employ this blatant mischaracterization to stoke anger and fear and cloud the debate. Anything to win.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith
