Please visit Robert's editorial sponsor.
If someone commits murder with a bat, it's time to sue the sporting goods store.
On the cover:
Hillary Clinton glasses
A New York ophthalmologist said the special glasses former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was seen wearing are used to treat double vision, which is sometimes caused by severe head trauma. Dr. Marc Werner explained the purpose of the Fresnel prism eyeglasses, like the ones Clinton wore, amid questions about the potential presidential candidate's health. The subject was raised after Karl Rove commented on her time in and out of the hospital in December 2012. "In order to see one object, your eyes need to be pointed in the same direction. If your eyes are misaligned, one way to optically align them is to put a prism... on your glasses," Werner said.
The Blind Leading The Blind
But the part of the debate that really got me going was the discussion on gun control. Bernie and Hillary were basically in agreement that the Second Amendment should be repealed, and gun ownership should be banned. At one point, Bernie even said "What we need to do is to do everything that we can to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of people who do not have them."
During the course of the debate, Hillary Clinton derided a law that she claims gives "special protection to gun manufacturers and dealers," stating that "this is a unique gift given to only one industry in the world by the United States Congress." The law in question is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2005. The law basically states that lawful gun manufacturers and dealers cannot be held liable if someone takes a gun they bought legally and uses it to commit a crime. There really shouldn't be anything controversial about this - there are various laws at the federal and state levels regulating the buying and selling of guns. What the PLCAA makes clear is that as long as manufacturers and dealers follow those regulations, they aren't legally liable for criminal activity committed with the gun that they manufactured or sold.
The issue is relevant today because a Connecticut judge recently ruled that family members of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting could sue Remington Arms. The families are alleging that AR-15 rifles should not be available to the general public; the suit isn't against Remington per se, but rather is an attempt to bring back the so-called "assault weapons ban" by circumventing state and federal legislatures, and using the courts to implement what the Left hasn't managed to push through Congress.
And when it comes to this lawsuit, that's the important part: it isn't about justice, it's about legislating from the bench - using the courts to create laws that Democrats haven't been able to push through Congress.
This is what Hillary had to say about opening up gun manufacturers and dealers to lawsuits:
This is a unique gift given to only one industry in the world by the United States Congress, as Senator Murphy from Connecticut said, we have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns.
And the point that Senator Sanders keeps making about how he wouldn't want a mom and pop store -- that was not the point of this. And if he can point to any, any incident where that happened, I would love to hear about it.
There are a few important aspects of Hillary's statement. First, while the PLCAA does provide legal protection to gun manufacturers and dealers, this protection isn't unique to the firearms industry, it just isn't explicitly covered in the law for other industries because there has never been a need. For example, a few months ago, a woman was charged with murder after she drove her Oldsmobile onto a crowded sidewalk in Las Vegas, killing one person and injuring over three dozen others. I had to check five different news reports before I found one that even mentioned the make of her car.
So here's the big question: under Hillary's logic, shouldn't General Motors face some liability for that crash? According to some reports, she had a spotty driving record; has there been an investigation into whether the dealership that sold her the car ever conducted a background check before selling her such a deadly piece of hardware?
Hillary stated that "we have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns." To put it simply, this is a lie. It just is not true...and you would have to be a special kind of stupid to believe it. I could drive around the corner to the local Wal-Mart and walk out with a toy gun right now if I wanted to. No one would care, or even give me a second look...and if I were to misuse that toy gun and murder someone with it, no one would even consider suing Wal-Mart or toy manufacturer.
If I walk into my local gun store to purchase a new gun, I have to fill out all kinds of paperwork, provide my ID, get a criminal background check, and wait for 10 days before I can pick up the gun I just purchased...and if I fail the background check & the gun dealer still sells me the gun, and then I misuse that gun and murder someone with it, then they can be held criminally liable, because gun manufacturers and dealers must follow all state and federal regulations in order to be protected by the PLCAA.
But by Hillary's logic (or lack thereof), we should be going after car manufacturers and dealerships whenever one person kills another with an automobile.
If someone uses a baseball bat to murder another person, the bat manufacturer, as well as the sporting goods store that sold the bat should be held criminally liable.
The next time a bank gets robbed, the bank should be less worried about going after the robbers than they should be about going after the manufacturer of the getaway car.
The next time someone gets stabbed with a kitchen knife, we need to go after the knife makers and dealers - after all, it's outrageous that anyone can get that kind of deadly weapon on the Internet with no background check.
But let's get back to reality. There are plenty of mechanisms in place for gun dealers to be held liable if they break the law and sell guns to the wrong people. Gun manufacturers are not protected if they sell defective products. Gun dealers are not protected if they fail to follow the numerous laws and regulations governing gun sales.
Hillary was right in her statement during that debate: making gun manufacturers and dealers follow the law is not the point of this. The point is to use the courts to dismantle the Second Amendment and ban guns in the United States...and that's exactly what we could see her do if she becomes the next President.
Robert Cleveland, Senior Conservative Editor: Robert Cleveland is the IT Director for a document management services company. When he isn't working on computers and scanners, he's spending time with his wife and kids, or writing about just how jacked-up Washington politics is. He is a strong believer that hard work and freedom are what make America the greatest nation on the planet, and it is of the utmost importance that we never lose those values. Robert's other writing can be found at his blog, more...)