I have to backtrack a little bit on a previous post, in which I cited the following question. What I wrote was not exactly wrong, but not the whole story.
Why does Clinton keep getting away with saying that gun manufacturers are the only industry that is immune from being held accountable for criminal acts by purchasers of their products? Almost NO manufacturers are, by law, accountable for criminal acts by purchasers of their products. Someone should ask her to name one that is.
True, no manufacturer is held responsible for the criminal use of their legal products, unless it can be shown that they knowingly or negligently sold the products to criminals. What makes gun manufacturers different is that in their case, this is spelled out in positive law, a law that Bernie Sanders supported.
Based on the exceptions written into the PLCAA, I don’t think it bars reasonable lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers. The significance of the issue in the context of the Democratic Presidential debate is that it shows Bernie Sanders has more sympathy for gun owners and gun manufacturers than Hillary Clinton does.
Summary of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (Hat tip to Gary Young)
How to Bring a Successful Case Against Gun Manufacturers and Sellers by Daniel R. Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics by Philip Rucker for the Washington Post.
Bernie Sanders Walks a Fine Line on Gun Control by Jessica Taylor for National Public Radio.
Has Hillary Clinton Ever Actually READ the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (the PLCAA)? She Doesn’t Seem to Know What It Says by Beverly Mann for Angry Bear. [added later]