In the aftermath of the deadliest mass shooting in US history, Democratic leaders are under renewed pressure to crack down on the Second Amendment. But is that really what the majority of American people want? The statistics say otherwise. So why do the Democrats keep returning to the same talking points?
“There’s a great book … called ‘The Politics of Doing Nothing,’ and that’s exactly what this is all about,” said Matt Larosiere, Legal Analyst and Young Voices advocate, on today’s “Dana.” He added, “A lot of the Democrats are just demanding action. It looks great but they’re doing nothing
Watch the whole segment here
Despite considerable policy differences on the old continent, one issue almost entirely unites Europeans: gun control. This is currently reflected through legislators, who, despite the apparent ineffectiveness of current gun regulation, continue to infringe on the right to bear arms.
The EU Commission in Brussels agreed on stricter gun laws last December, with EU interior ministers deciding on new measures despite several members, including the Czechs, voting against it. The new directive institutes a complete ban on semi-automatic firearms, tightens regulations on online purchases, and allows for an exchange of information about gun owners across the continent.
Continue reading in TownHall
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has claimed that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) makes a gun “the only product of its kinds for which Congress has given the industry extensive freedom from liability.” However, the PLCAA afforded no protections to the arms industry that did not already exist for all industries. Activists are targeting this law because it prevents the anti-gun lobby from using the legal system to bypass the legislature and cripple the lawful sale of arms, as Healy is attempting to do in Massachusetts.
The PLCAA, which was passed with bipartisan support, only shields manufacturers under a narrow set of circumstances. It prevents innocent firearms manufacturers from being held liable when criminals misuse their products. To understand the opposition, one must understand the nature of the lawsuits it was written to prevent.
Liability for What They Did, Not What They Didn’t Do
Many have heard of “strict products liability” but are unsure of exactly what it means. If one thinks that it simply means that a manufacturer must pay for any harm its goods cause, the argument against the PLCAA might make some sense. However, that is far from the reality.
Generally, manufacturers and dealers are held liable for any harm caused by products sold “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.” This includes manufacturing defects, unsafe design, and inadequate warnings. This means a plaintiff need not prove the manufacturer was at fault; he need only prove the existence of a defect. So, if a product is deemed “unreasonably dangerous,” a manufacturer would almost certainly lose a lawsuit involving harm from that product. This is why the anti-gun crowd salivates at this type of liability.
Continue reading at The Federalist.