I just saw a clip of Hillary Clinton saying that, by voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), Bernie Sanders gave to the “gun lobby, gun manufacturers and gun sellers absolute immunity.”
Now, it’s totally fair for Clinton to go after Bernie on guns. I don’t think he’s as vulnerable as she thinks he is on this, and I trust him on guns even though I haven’t agreed with every vote. But it’s fair for his opponents to point out how he voted — on everything and anything. My preference would be that they don’t try to pretend that he hasn’t voted to ban assault weapons and large magazines, for background checks, etc., i.e., that he’s somehow in the pocket of the NRA, which by his votes he assuredly is not. But this vote, sure, totally vulnerable to criticism.
However, the Act he signed does not grant “absolute immunity” to anyone:
protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
So, no.
Bernie Sanders did not vote to give the gun lobby immunity in any way shape or form. They’re not mentioned in the Act.
Bernie Sanders did not vote to give gun manufacturers or gun sellers “absolute immunity”. This law precludes people from suing a gun manufacturer or seller who follows the law from being held liable if someone uses the gun to commit crimes. There are laws regulating what they can and can’t do and they can still be prosecuted — and held liable. And apparently he’s totally open to looking at it again (although personally I think it would be better if he just said he wouldn’t vote for it again given the chance — whatever parts he likes he can bring up separately.)
I hate guns and I wish they’d all be melted down to make windfarms. I wish we could sue the hell out of gun manufacturers and sellers if only for a sense of satisfaction but if they are selling a lawful product lawfully following all background check protocols and other requirements, it’s not likely you’d win even if the law didn’t exist. I wish it didn’t, and I don’t support the vote, but I don’t think it would change much. Our focus should be on changing the laws.
I don’t like the vote even for optics’ sake and Bernie’s not 100% for me on guns (but I trust him with regard to gun safety based on his more recent votes and statements in support of background checks, limits to magazines, assault weapons ban, straw sales, etc.) but our focus should be on the other things that ALL of the democrats support. Smacking away about Bernie’s vote on this law is standard politics, totally fair and to be expected, but it’s not the whole story. And if it’s not the whole story, it’s up to Sanders to correct the record. But at least people attacking him should get this part of it right.
This is the part of politics I hate the most, and this is where Clinton goes when the going gets rough.