The Second Amendment has proven robust and highly protective of the right to bear arms. It has withstood all of Democrats attempts to ban and confiscate firearms thus far. Each year that goes by it seems Democrats get a little more frustrated with their lack of headway on the subject as seen in their move farther and farther to the left.
So while you may be feeling pretty secure right now with Democrats not in the majority in the Senate (and therefore unable to enact any radical legislation) and out of the White House, that feeling might turn fleeting after you hear about Democrats change in strategy on gun control.
Democrats opposed to the Second Amendment know they can’t simply amend the Constitution to get rid of it. So, they are trying to destroy it with flanking maneuvers. Their new strategy involves a bill they are calling the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act.
This bill is different from past legislation because instead of targeting guns, they are targeting the manufacturers of guns. Sponsoring Democrats want to enable frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and ammo makers whenever someone causes harm while illegally using firearms.
Fortunately, President Donald Trump and the GOP-led Senate never will let the bills become law. But, they clearly illustrate the decisions faced by those who support the Second Amendment, versus those who would destroy it, during the upcoming 2020 election cycle. The proposed act would produce a massive chilling effect on the legal sale of firearms. It also would line the pockets of unscrupulous trial attorneys and those politically motivated to eliminate the Second Amendment.
Sponsoring Democrats say the proposed act would “correct” what they consider to be an error made by the GOP-led Congress in 2005. The GOP then enacted the current Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and President George W. Bush in 2005 signed it into law. Anti-gun liberals have hated it ever since.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act affirms the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms – including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training. That is one pesky legal clarification anti-gun liberals oppose. Anti-gun politicians had argued the Second Amendment only applied to state-sponsored militia and military and not individuals.
Another pesky clarification is the one House Democrats are trying to erode with their latest legislative tactics, and the act’s primary purpose. That clarification is a good supply of properly made firearms and ammunition ensures U.S. citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights. The act cites lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms that “operate as designed and intended.” In other words, it does not apply to black-market firearms illegally modified to fire fully automatic, or other illegal modifications.
The act acknowledges firearms and ammunition and their use in the United States are heavily regulated by federal, state and local laws. In other words: Common sense gun laws already exist. We do not need more.
With such legal clarifications in place in a federal act, those opposed to gun ownership are looking to flank the Second Amendment with legal rulings. They hope to chip away at the industry as a whole and make it virtually impossible to stay in business and turn a profit – unless you make and sell arms strictly to the federal government. Joseph Stalin would approve such a policy. So would any other totalitarian leader, like Mao, Hitler, etc.
Fortunately, much like our Founding Fathers, Congress in 2005 engaged in a rare feat of common sense: they protected the Second Amendment by protecting the legal manufacture, sale and use of firearms and ammunition. The act specifically states: “The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty.”
The act holds that businesses are not liable for “harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed or intended.” In other words, so long as the manufacturer, distributor and seller at the final point of sale did not do something that caused the firearm or ammunition to malfunction or modify it in any way, they are not liable for injuries or deaths caused by their improper use.
After all, it is illegal to commit murder. No manufacturer designs a firearm with the intent to make it easier to commit murder or other crimes. They design firearms to thwart such criminal acts against law-abiding citizens. Enabling crime victims and those related to victims of violent crimes in which perpetrators used firearms to sue gun makers clearly is an abuse of the legal system.
It also creates a slippery slope in which the makers of perfectly viable products face an endless stream of liability lawsuits. If gun makers can be sued for criminal acts, then car makers can be sued for criminal acts involving cars – including reckless driving and drunk driving accidents resulting in great bodily harm or death. The only people who win are trial attorneys, while the rest of society pays a hefty price in lost civil rights.