During the last Democratic debate Mrs. Clinton argued (contra Bernie) that manufacturers ought to be sued even when their products work exactly as designed:
here’s David French:
..the absurdity of, say, suing Ford if a maniac drives his perfectly-functioning truck through a crowd, but given the constitutional implications, Hillary’s law would be like suing the maker of a printing press because the National Enquirer lied about Kim Kardashian. Or, to make things more current, it would be like suing Apple because Salon slandered a pastor. Incidentally, this is another reason why Second Amendment activists aren’t fooled by Democrats’ assertion that they’re simply interested in “common-sense” gun control and aren’t “after your guns.” If it’s now received conventional wisdom in the Democratic primary that gun manufacturers can and should be sued into oblivion for making a perfectly-functioning product, then they’re going far beyond closing the mythical “gun show loophole” and instead advocating closing the market for new firearms. Remington could no more survive lawsuits for misuse of a well-manufactured Model 870 than could Ford for the misuse of a well-made F250.
and here’s Charles C.W. Cooke
By phrasing her criticism this way, Clinton hopes to trick her audience into believing that gun manufacturers are immune from prosecution when their products do not work properly — and, worse still, that they have been accorded a “pass” that “no other industry in America” enjoys. But that’s not true. Not at all. In fact, as the Washington Post’s debate reviewers note today, “gun manufacturers can be sued if injuries result from a defective product that is used properly.” As with Clinton’s hypothetical toys, an American who injures himself with a gun that doesn’t work has every opportunity to take the maker to court. What he cannot do, thanks to the 2005 reform, is sue the manufacturer when a working gun was used for ill. This, in my view, is sensible. As with knives, screwdrivers, poisons, and acids, it makes no sense to hold gun-makers liable for the misuse of their functioning products.
As a rule, look past the poorly-labelled “common sense” gun control idea and you can expect to find something that (a) doesn’t address a real-world concern and (b) appears to be designed specifically to demonize and polarize.