How Democrats Seek to BAN ALL Firearms in the USA
How Democrats Seek to BAN ALL Firearms in the USA
original article written by Net Advisor™
The bill would allow people to sue gun manufacturers if anyone is shot. Does that include accidental, misuse or self-inflicted injury? The bill does not exempt any situation.
The Bill, Equal Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act is not about justice or equality, the end result is about banning firearms.
The bill has two short parts, but HUGE implications. We examine them here:
“Sections 2 through 4 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. 7901–7903) are repealed.”
— “Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act,” Schiff (D-CA) et al (PLCAA Further reading) (legal research reference for 15 USC § 7901-7903).
The bill, if became law would expand liability from the person who actually did the shooting to also include persons and or companies who manufactured the product (firearms/bullets); who together, had nothing to do with the independent or unlawful actions of another or others.
Let’s draw a few examples.
- A gang member shoots another gang member. The “victim” would be able to sue the firearms dealer where the gun was originally sold – even if it was reported stolen. The “victim” could also sue the gun manufacturer, and perhaps sue the company that made the bullet(s).
- This is a lot like, Bob was driving his car in traffic. Someone hits Bob’s car, injuring or killing Bob. Both vehicles were found to be in working order. Would Bob be able to sue the car manufacturer, the tire manufacture, and the dealer who sold the car?
- Dave was on a construction site. Dave accidentally cut his hand with a saw he was using. Would Dave be able to sue the manufacturer of the saw, or the retail store where the saw was built?
- One more: A man had an argument with his wife. At one point the wife grabs a (insert weapon) hammer, kitchen knife, toaster, etc. The man is severely injured or dies. Would the man or the children be able to sue the manufacturer and store who produced or sold the hammer, kitchen knife or toaster? NO.
Because a court would say people are responsible for their own actions. Could they bring a wrongful death case? Yes. That kind of case is against the person who caused the wrongful death, not the object used in the crime.
Democrats want to allow people to sue the weapon manufacturer and the dealer where the weapon was legally sold. Democrats are specifically and exclusively targeting the firearm/ bullet manufacturers which some might argue discriminate their industry and not others.
DOJ: 91% Violent Crimes Did NOT Involve a Firearm
A 2010 DOJ report found that there were 3,817,380 crimes in the USA, and 91% of them involved NO firearms.
Total Number of Violent Crimes: 3,817,380 (2010)
- Crimes of violence that did NOT involve a weapon: 2,643,420. This represented 69% (sixty-nine percent) of all violent crimes.
- Violent crimes that involved a firearm: 337,960. This represented only 9% (nine-percent) of all violent crimes.
- Thus the DOJ found that 91% (ninety-one percent) of all violent crimes did NOT involve a firearm.
— Source: DOJ, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010 (Table 4, page 8 of 20, PDF).
This is an attempt to hit firearm manufacturers, bullet manufacturers, and firearm dealers with eternal lawsuits to drive them all out of business. This would then create a new black-market for guns in the U.S. Then the government would just outlaw that, and wallah, – you have an effective gun ban.
The second part of the anti-gun bill is the real killer (no pun intended) and has HUGE implications. Here is the language in its entirety:
“The contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall not be immune from legal process, shall be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be admissible as evidence, and may be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, and testimony or other evidence may be permitted based on the data, on the same basis as other information, in a civil action in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in an administrative proceeding.”
— “Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act,” Schiff (D-CA) et al
This database includes every (legal) firearm purchased in the USA, and many international legal purchases.
Under the terms of the bill, the Trace Database could be disclosed publicly, can be used in any matter, including, but not limited to any legal proceeding in any U.S. state (including DC). It also implies that the U.S. government or state can also take legal action under the “administrative proceeding” clause.
This would allow states and the federal government to spend virtually unlimited taxpayer money to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers until the ‘targets’ run out of money from defending ANY and unlimited lawsuits.
Under existing law, the ATF’s National Tracing Center is used exclusively by federal law enforcement (ATF) to trace guns used in crimes.
“Firearms tracing begins when a law enforcement agency discovers a firearm at a crime scene and seeks to learn the origin or background of that firearm in order to develop investigative leads. Tracing is a systematic process of tracking the movement of a firearm from its manufacture or from its introduction into U.S. commerce by the importer, through the distribution chain, i.e., wholesaler/retailer, to identify an unlicensed purchaser.”
This includes knowing who the legal owners of firearms are. If ATF can ID an unlicensed purchaser, that means ATF can ID who the firearm belongs to – ie: who bought it, and who sold it.
The Democrat bill would thus run the risk of making the ATF’s firearm database open to private citizens, states and the federal government to locate anyone with a firearm, whether or not a crime was committed. That’s how confiscation works.
Once you create cause, you find reason to locate and then seize weapons.
Then when a Left politician and Left political party is in power, they then claim there is a problem with those weapons; so they restrict them, then ban them one class at a time. You eventually get to the point of – we’ll there is just one more class of weapons left (likely hand guns), and we banned everything else, so why not just finish the job? People not cooperating? Then move to criminalize them and implement confiscation.
Clinton Supports Suing Firearm Manufacturers & Dealers
Hillary Clinton’s own statements says she supports this legislation:
“Let’s reverse the immunity. Let’s put the gun makers and sellers on notice that they’re not going to get away with it”
— Hillary Clinton. (CBS, Democratic Primary Debate, Iowa, Nov. 14, 2015. Source).
“I will also repeal legislation that shields gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from liability suits, even in cases of mass shootings”
— Hillary Clinton. (Fox News Coverage of 2016 Presidential Hopefuls, Oct. 5, 2015. Source).
When doing research for this report, we looked for the original video of Clinton making the statement about the anti-gun legislation. The search returned with a video about a puppy going for a swim.
Gun Ban History in 17th Century America
This anti-gun effort would not likely ever work in the USA, because you’d end up much like what occurred just prior to the American Revolution where today, substitute the ‘British’ for ‘Democrats.’
- 1774: The British banned the importation of firearms and gunpowder to the Colonists.
- 1774-1775: The British then attempted to seize arms, ammunition (weapon confiscation) including gunpowder from the Colonists which lead up to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
The British were given a SECRET (executive) order to even destroy all military (militia) stores where Colonists purchased their personal weapons.
“…with utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy … all Military stores …”
History Repeating Itself?
Don’t think this could happen again in the USA? It already has.
Two months before the November 2012 election, Mitt Romney was gaining support. President Obama then pulled out of a controversial U.N. Arms Treaty (allowing the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs to regulate international gun sales – Not the USA). Obama previously supported this treaty since 2010 (Source: Huffington Post, PDF).
By 2016, 92 Democrats asked Pres. Obama to (unilaterally) ban import of so called “Assault Weapons.” Now Democrats including Hillary Clinton are seeking to try and create legislation to effectively sue the firearms manufacturers and dealers out of business and expose remaining legal gun owners in the USA.
I revisited some historical research on how someone like Adolf Hitler came to power, seized more power, and acted unilaterally (like a dictator).
In short, in 1933, Hitler made this speech and the next day got the Enabling Act passed in Germany. The county was suffering economically, (sound familiar?), and the people were in distress. Under the Act, Hitler managed to abolish all other political parties except his, arrested domestic political leaders, and put all political power under Hitler’s control.
The people, without really knowing what they were supporting gave a round-of-applause.
Much like when Clinton and others talk about gun control. The audience cheers as if they have intimate knowledge of what liberties they are about to give up.
It is as if the audience is being told exactly and honestly what the former Senator’s plans are for the Republic. All they hear is it’s for your own ‘safety’ and ‘security.’ They don’t hear how their liberties will be stripped in the process.
Life Imitates Art?
Some say life imitates art.
Former Senator turned Supreme Chancellor Palpatine during a time of major crisis said [to the Senate]:
“In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.”
[Senate fills with enormous *applause*]
The History Channel drew multiple references from George Lucas’s Star War Episode III (Revenge of the Sith, 2005) to where governments created artificial crisis, secretly seeking tyrannical power, while public perception is for our own security and benefit.
‘Free societies don’t collapse…until they have destroyed themselves within.’
— Edward L. Hudgins, Executive Director, The Atlas Society
So yes, liberty is at stake in 2016 and now we know so is the right to defend it?
Main Image Credit: Hillary Clinton in Hopkinsville, KY (AP).
Video Credit: History Channel
Original content copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.