"Hillary Clinton is not only lying but, as a former attorney, she should know better."
This is from the award winning (best blog/Netroots Nation), progressive, Alaskan-based blog, The Mudflats. The author is Carl Johnson who has a juris doctorate from the University of Minnesota Law School and practiced law in Alaska for 10 years. He painstakingly sets forth the explicit language of the PLCAA Act and calls out Hillary as a liar in her attacks on Bernie on the topic of gun control. He concludes:
"So, not only does this law not provide blanket, absolute immunity to the gun industry for any civil or criminal liability, but the folks at the Brady Campaign have even published a road map on how to successfully sue the gun industry for a variety of causes of action. Comparing their motivations to those of Hillary Clinton, I would certainly trust their word over hers on this subject."
His analysis painstakingly proves this law does not create any new immunities that did not already exist at common law. It also keeps in place the right previously at common law to sue over defects in design or manufacture that cause injury. And Hillary Clinton should, and does, know better.
He further explains that the key problem with the law is not how it is written, but how courts have been interpreting it. With the exception of one state case, most courts have been reading the exceptions rather narrowly. Thus, a good “fix” for the law would be to fill in the gaps where the courts have been interpreting the exceptions too strictly.
Hillary Is Off Target To Attack Bernie On Guns
Now that the race is tightening, Hillary Clinton is increasing her attacks on Bernie Sanders regarding his record on gun control. Starting back in October and as recently as this week, she notes how she and President Obama while in the Senate voted against a bill that would grant blanket immunity to gun manufacturers from law suits. In contrast, she claims, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the bill.
Simply put, Hillary Clinton is not only lying but, as a former attorney, she should know better.
The law in question was the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA generally shields licensed manufacturers, dealers, and sellers of firearms or ammunition, as well as trade associations, from any civil action “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm or ammunition, but does provide six exceptions where a civil suit could be maintained.
Now, as a former attorney, Hillary Clinton should be able to read this statute and enjoy the fine summary provided by the Congressional Research Service highlighting these provisions. She would be able to read it, understand it, and know that she is speaking falsely when claiming the law makes gun manufacturers “totally free of liability for their behavior.”
Mrs. Clinton would, as a former attorney, know that one of these exceptions affirms what is available at the common law – the ability to sue a manufacturer for a defective design or construction of a product that causes harm when used as intended. Tort law is often a powerful tool for people to enact changes in behavior among manufacturers. So, if you buy a shotgun and it backfires and harms someone, you can still file a lawsuit against that gun manufacturer. Actually, because of this law, it is clear that manufacturers are totally liable for their behavior – their design, their manufacturer, their sales (if done in violation of applicable laws). But standard products liability only applies to liability for harm caused during the normal use of that product. It would not apply during abnormal use.
Thus, Mrs. Clinton would also know that manufacturers typically enjoy common law immunity from the tortious or criminal acts committed in the use of their products. One such immunity available at common law is the intervening act of a third party. No one can sue Toyota for manslaughter if I use my Prius to commit vehicular homicide. It wasn’t any design or manufacturing defect that caused the injury, but rather my intervening criminal act that did. But they could sue Toyota under the common law if, rather than vehicular homicide, the death was caused because my brakes failed and I struck someone as a result of that failure.
http://www.themudflats.net/archives/46596
= new reply since forum marked as read
and this is why.
She is running for President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world.
She not getting a free pass and nobody should, ever. Every single one of our candidates, both sides, should be questioned. No matter what party they belong to. It's our duty to do that.
Democracy isn't a spectator sport. Just because Hillary belongs to a party that you're part of doesn't mean her history and baggage (there's no lacking in that area) get a free pass.
She's a weak candidate. If you want a stronger candidate who doesn't have 1/100th of the baggage, #FeelTheBern!
Roosevelt said it best.
