My latest column is up at AND Magazine!
Here is an excerpt:
Last week, for the first time in this election cycle, I tuned in to the Democrat primary debate. It was an interesting experience, listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders basically agreeing that the U.S. economy should be utterly destroyed, bickering all the while over whether that destruction should come immediately via drastic minimum wage increases, crippling environmental regulations, and ridiculously huge tax hikes, or continue to be a long, drawn-out decline via slightly less drastic minimum wage increases, slightly less crippling environmental regulations, and marginally less ridiculous tax hikes.
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 Bernie and Hillary were basically in agreement that the Second Amendment should be repealed, and gun ownership should be banned.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.