Houston Gun Show at George R. Brown Convention Center (By http://flickr.com/photos/glasgows/ — http://flickr.com/photos/glasgows/432945997/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1984182)

Hillary Clinton believes we should be able to hold firearms manufacturers liable for gun crimes.

Not only is this a ridiculous statement coming out of a presidential candidate, but it would be disastrous to try and eliminate an industry that employs 288,000 people (counting supplier jobs and induced jobs) that is only doing its job. It makes no logical sense. It makes only for good politics.

Firearms are exceptionally politicized in our country. Nearly every single person who wants to start gun control in our country focuses on our nation’s firearms. It’s a noble cause- and it has some merit, but the current reality is that people have the legal right, under US law and the Second Amendment, to own guns. The best action would be to target the dealers and perpetrators who sell these weapons, not the manufacturers. Of course, Mrs. Clinton has a larger plan in mind, with stronger firearms restrictions in the future, which begins with the ability to hold a manufacturer responsible for an act committed by mentally deranged people.

The premise of the law she is opposing (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) is simple, protecting the industry from people using firearms illegally. Simply, holding “an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system”. It makes logical sense: the firearm manufacturers are manufacturing a legal product, which is sold to a consumer (which would be the fault of the government, not of the manufacturer) to use.

We cannot allow a flood of lawsuits to enter our courts due to politically motivated means. For example, Adames v. Beretta sought to sue Beretta, a firearms manufacturing company. According to NPR, the case was: “In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father’s Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim’s family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog.”

The events that lead to Adames v. Beretta were regrettable, but it was honestly the fault of the father, for allowing the child to gain access to his firearm. More or less safeties wouldn’t have saved that child- responsible firearm ownership would have. Mr. Adames was simply irresponsible for allowing his 13 year-old son to access the firearm, and not teaching his child about the basics of firearm safety.

These are the cases Mrs. Clinton wants to bring to trial. They would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars from an industry that has only done its job: making reliable firearms. Instead of targeting the people who commit these crimes and their dealers, she targets an entire industry and the millions of Americans who own firearms responsibly.

She’s only saying these things for political motive. They lack solid logical and legal sense. If there are laws, it should be concentrated on the dealers who knowingly sell guns to criminals and the perpetrators of firearm atrocities.

To support her political view, she has exploited Jillian Soto, a sister of a teacher at Sandy Hook teacher, to fight for her cause. To support a purely political viewpoint, that is indefensible in any use of common sense, she exploited a grieving sister of a victim of a mass atrocity. This is shameful, and not the actions of any presidential candidate, to use a grieving family member to create a law stripping US people and industry the right to fair laws.

Shame on Mrs. Clinton for lacking logic, shame on her for exploiting the victims of the Sandy Hook Shooting, shame on her as a presidential candidate. She’s wrong on guns, and she’s wrong on how she’s abusing these victims for her own political gain.