Supremes nix Mexican gun lawsuit.

L

ladder13

Member
Silver Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
33,195
Reaction score
59,718
Location
NC
Unanimous ruling.



The Supreme Court unanimously threw out Mexico’s multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the American gun industry on Thursday that sought to usher in major changes to firearm sales by holding companies liable for cartel violence.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, said the lawsuit is barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 federal law that has provided firearms manufacturers broad legal immunity and come under criticism under from gun control advocates
 
Register to hide this ad
6 of the 8 original defendants in the case had already been dismissed. I'm sure S&W and Interstate Distributors, who were the remaining two defendants, are breathing a huge sigh of relief this morning.
 
SCOTUS just threw out the lawsuit by Mexico against U S gun manufacturers by a vote of 9-0. They cited among other things the 2005 federal law protecting lawful commerce in firearms. They were also of the opinion that the point of view of the Mexican government was not supported by the facts.
 
As an attorney I am very pleased that one of the left judges wrote the opinion. Mexico was trying to sneak in one of those "exceptions" that some states have tried. The "exceptions" are theories that if a company knowingly and intentionally markets a product to a precise person or group of persons, that are likely to use them for bad purposes, then such a program is not a legitimate business action, and therefore not covered by the act.

Those cases take a lot of evidence to get traction. If Smith and Wesson had made a specific contract to supply one of the cartels some ARS with binary triggers for example and a 100 of them had actually been used to murder people, we might have a different result. Or if Colt entered into a contract to sell enhanced ARs only to Hamas, and no one else. That might not fall under the Act. Because they would not be in the normal gun business, they would be an arm of a terrorist group. You get the idea.

But Smith and Wesson was just selling guns, which is covered by the act. Of course some may be smuggled into Mexico, anything can be smuggled into Mexico. So, there were no facts to make any such case.

It is important in my mind for a 9-0 decision, because it means that all 9 believe in the plain language of the Act. So, the next time it comes up, it would take a pretty dramatic fact pattern for them to change their opinion. As long as a company just makes and sell guns they should be fine.

It is when you have companies advertising things like they have found a way around some ATF rule of something like that which creates problems and justices may waffle on issues.

So, this is a great result in my view and a liberal justice writing the opinion is just a great result. IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TXBryan
Mexico sues U.S. gunmakers
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Oldsalt66
Oldsalt66
bushmaster1313
NJ 10+ Magazine Ban ANJRPC v. Bruck Update 9/21/2022
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
venomballistics
venomballistics
GaryS
Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional
Replies
13
Views
1K
Bucher33
Bucher33
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN -- Collection reduction: 40 guns (15 S&W + Colts, etc.)
2
Replies
26
Views
10K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
J
Supreme Court Decision - Guns & Domestic Violence
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
G.T. Smith
G.T. Smith

Latest posts

Back
Top