Sen. Bernie Sanders completed his walkback on guns Thursday with a move to co-sponsor a bill that repeals gun industry protections he backed in 2005. Tad Devine, his senior strategist, confirmed that Sanders will sign onto repealing a bill that gives gunmakers and manufacturers unusual immunity from liability. Hillary Clinton has hammered Sanders for his 2005 vote in favor of the measure, arguing that he caved to the firearms lobby at a time when Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly back more gun control.Throw mama from the train.
The bill (now "law") referenced is the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)", which specifically protects firearms manufacturers from liability when a weapon which they have made, and sold through (a) a dealer and probably then through (b) a retailer) has been used by the final purchaser in an illegal manner.
Immunity statutes grant legal protection to gun manufacturers and dealers, shielding them from liability for a wide range of conduct. Similar immunity laws have been adopted in some form by the federal government and 34 states.
This is an act which has been specifically applied to firearms manufacturers, because they have been identified as having been much more liable to "nuisance" suits than any other manufacturers ... such as automobile manufacturers..
In truth, automobile manufacturers would seem to be as liable, but when a drunk drives through a bunch of people on the mall, that's not as "public" as when a drunk shoots a bunch of people on the mall.
So Congress has recognized the particular liability to 'nuisance' suits for firearms manufacturers, and enacted this law which more or less says:
"I know you're pissed because your loved one got shot, but the folks who made the gun and then sold it to the wholesaler, who sold it to the retailer, who sold it to the purchaser, whose son killed the purchaser and stole the gun from her safe and then killed a bunch of people ....... the gun maker isn't liable, okay?"
Bernie accepted this "exception" before the heat began during the recent Presidential campaign cycle, but now he's backing off from his previous acceptance because it doesn't sound as presidential as he would wish.
Which is another way of saying that he doesn't think he can win the nomination if he protects Second Amendment Rights.