Supreme Court Will Hear Gun Industry Challenge to Mexico’s Lawsuit
“Simply put, Mexico’s suit threatens to undermine American sovereignty and constitutional liberty, and it has no business in this country’s courts.”
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the gun industry’s challenge to the Mexican government’s lawsuit against them.
The Mexican government sued the big gun companies, accusing them of fueling cartel violence in the country. The government also blamed America’s gun laws.
The government wants $10 billion.
“Unless this Court intervenes, the federal courts in the American Northeast are now open to suits by every foreign government that wants to curtail the American firearms industry,” warned the gun companies in their SCOTUS filing. “That is intolerable for a country with a Second Amendment, and for the millions of law abiding citizens who depend on the industry to exercise their constitutional rights.”
The companies added: “Simply put, Mexico’s suit threatens to undermine American sovereignty and constitutional liberty, and it has no business in this country’s courts.”
If the Mexican government wants to blame anyone except for itself because that’d be too easy, it should go after Eric Holder.
Holder’s ATF ran Operation Fast & Furious. Who knows how many guns are in Mexico from that deadly operation?
RIP, Brian Terry.
Plaintiff Estados Unidos Mexicanos (the “Government”), a sovereign nation, brings this action to put an end to the massive damage that the Defendants cause by actively facilitating the unlawful trafficking of their guns to drug cartels and other criminals in Mexico. Almost all guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico—70% to 90% of them—were trafficked from the U.S. The Defendants include the six U.S.-based manufacturers whose guns are most often recovered in Mexico—Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, and Ruger. Another manufacturer defendant is Barrett, whose .50 caliber sniper rifle is a weapon of war prized by the drug cartels. The remaining defendant—Interstate Arms—is a Boston-area wholesaler through which all but one of the defendant manufacturers sell their guns for re-sale to gun dealers throughout the U.S.
I cannot with these people:
Defendants design, market, distribute, and sell guns in ways they know routinely arm the drug cartels in Mexico. Defendants use reckless and corrupt gun dealers and dangerous and illegal sales practices that the cartels rely on to get their guns. Defendants design these guns to be easily modified to fire automatically and to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico. Defendants know how to make and sell their guns to prevent this illegal trade; the U.S. government and a U.S. court told them how. Defendants defy those recommendations, and many others, and instead choose to continue supplying the criminal gun market in Mexico— because they profit from it.
In early September 2022, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor in Boston tossed most of the lawsuit: “While the court has considerable sympathy for the people of Mexico, and none whatsoever for those who traffic guns to Mexican criminal organizations, it is duty-bound to follow the law.”
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit in January:
That law, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), provides the firearms industry broad protection from lawsuits over their products’ misuse.
Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the U.S. and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.
U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, writing for the three-judge panel, said that while the law can be applied to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Can we just cut ties with Mexico already? Our government looks on the up and up compared to theirs.
Finish the wall, electrify it and let’s call it a day, eh?
irrespective of the positive or negative impact of your suggested policy change, te Nafta treaty will override
And what will Mexico do if we stop honoring NAFTA? I am not saying that we should do that, but treaties are only as powerful as the executive willing to uphold them. The courts can not force the federal government to honor a treaty, and past court rulings have adopted a position that this issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
Corporate interests would not allow us to cut off NAFTA
The US has lots of leverage over Mexico. Tax or stop remittances. In 2023 Mexico got $63 billion in remittances, more than their oil revenue. The US embargos all remittances to Cuba, unless that’s changed. Even a tax would hit Mexico hard and there’s nothing they can do about except complain.
Presumably Peter Moss’s proposal would require an act of Congress to authorize it anyway. In that case there can be no question that that would override any treaty to the contrary.
Treaties are the supreme law of the land, but so are federal statutes, and they rank equal, so in case of unavoidable contradiction between them the later one always overrides the earlier one, just like a contradiction between two statutes, or two treaties.
Even if no act of congress were needed, however, the president has the unilateral power to abrogate a treaty; at least that was the outcome of the case when Barry Goldwater sued Jimmy Carter over his abrogation of the Taiwan treaty.
None of which is to comment on the wisdom of Peter Moss’s proposal; I’m merely commenting on whether the treaty would be an obstacle to implementing it.
I feel like we’re well past a fence, even an electrified one. We need ‘gators, Piranha, landmines, gun turrets, armed drones and maybe even some directed energy weapons. I want a barrier so imposing, even flies – and the wind – are afraid to try and cross.
some directed energy weapons
I want those microwave weapons they invented for crowd control. Absolutely non-lethal and even big tough guys scramble to get out of the area.
And, if someone takes one out they get a lethal response.
No argument from this Texan. They’re a pain in our backside.
Does this mean we can sue Mexico for facilitating the invasion of US?
And for drug smuggling
How many US citizens are dead from the drugs? Sure beats the losses in Mexico.
Maybe if we could get the drug growers to appear in court.
Mexico is alleging violations of its laws. Why is it civilly suing the manufacturers in the US when it could be criminally prosecuting them in Mexican courts? No money in it? Or do US gun manufacturers have no offices or officials in Mexico?
No, it’s not alleging violation of its laws, it’s alleging violation of US laws. Obviously Mexican laws are not enforceable in US courts.
a weapon of war
It’s also a weapon of shooting sh*t really far away and watching it get BIG holes in it. It’s a weapon of fun.
Also, seems to me that if the Mexican government did their due diligence and closed their border with the US they wouldn’t have this smuggling problem. Right?
Having said all that, this seems like something our ATF could do something about. Maybe if they spent their time going after already illegal interactions (theft, smuggling) they could put a dent in that issue, too.
Instead of, you know, actually enabling the weapons smugglers themselves.
ATF did put a dent in the illegal smuggling…. they elbowed (muscled) out competitors by selling to the Cartels.
If it were really happening, sure. But it’s probably not happening. Mexico’s allegations are unlikely to be true.
Would anyone be surprised if the lawsuit is brought by cartel-controlled sectors of the Mexican government hoping to get more money?
Failed state Mexico has facilitated and encouraged the invasion of this country. They allow the cartels to own the border regions of their own country.
The fact that lawfully manufactured and sold weapons are being used by villains of all sorts is not the fault of manufacturers, as Mexico knows well.
But hey, 10 billion bucks always comes in handy to a corrupt regime.
Perhaps we could stipulate that the money would be paid only by a steady stream of deported illegals holding a $100 bill each, to be handed over to the Mex government on arrival.
We should open up a new shooting range for weapons of all shapes and sizes, called “Mexico”.
Next Russia will sue the framers for creating publishing a disruptive document to their society: the Constitution
Don’t forget about the DoI, too.
Suddenly foreign government have standing to sue lawful US manufactureres. Weird.
… foreign governments …
proof-read
Why is that weird? Why would foreign governments not have standing in US courts? Do you imagine the USA has no standing in foreign courts?! Would you want foreign courts to deny the USA standing?!
“Defendants design these guns to be easily modified to fire automatically and to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico.”
1) ATF has to make a determination that a firearm cannot be readily converted to fully auto…. which all of these firearms have passee ATF certification.
2) Manufacturers do not sell directly to the public.
3) Mexico is a Marxist/Cartel run country in bed with the Democrat Party when it comes to disarming US citizens…just like in Mexico. FJB. I can’t say FKH because that is how she advanced herself and may be continuing to do so.
4) With billions of dollars, the Cartels can buy anything they want or steal from the Federales.
“The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit in January:”… Boston… need I say more?
Had to go back and review the constitution as to how the Supreme Court didn’t have original jurisdiction in such an international case. But it doesn’t.
design these guns … to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico
Say what? The guns themselves can actually defeat all of the laws in America and the border controls of Mexico? Wow! Where can I get me some of these?
That has to be one of the most asinine claims in the anti-gun lawfare that I’ve ever seen.
But it’s the one which, IIRC, the alleged judges in the 1st circuit hung their collective hats on to claim that it met an exception to the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms protection. The gun control organization (Everytown Law IIRC) US lawyers claimed that the manufacturers knew that was true and thus they were complicit in trafficing the firearms.
It’s an insane position to take. By that logic the Auto manufacturers are liable for drive by shootings and crime getaway cars, vehicular homicides, DUI, transportation of a minor across State lines, all sorts of interstate smuggling/trafficking …any/every crime in which a vehicle is used…
Makes as much sense as states and municipalities suing Kia and Hyundai for what ghetto garbage does with the Kias and Hyundais they steal.
“Defendants design these guns to be easily modified to fire automatically”
A ridiculous assertion, as it is much easier to design and construct a fully-automatic weapon than one that STOPS firing automatically. You may as well complain that aircraft manufacturers deliberately design their planes to be insufficiently immune to gravity.
Years ago during the first major attack on semi-autos, NBC showed a gunsmith converting a semi-auto to full….. well ATF showed up and the gunsmith said it wasn’t and couldn’t which ATF agreed with… just that NBC lied… gee. In the famous Hollywood shootout, the two rifles had been converted. An LA Times article reported that ATF was concerned how it was done.. and the story going around was that they were converted in Mexico and smuggled back into the country. Mexico is a failed country siphoning money out of the US and willing to work (collude) with the Brandon/Harris admin to keep the flow of money with the approval of FJB to do other things.
Can the US sue Afghanistan for whatever happens to the billions of dollars in real weapons left there? I thought so….
Lawsuit? We don’t need no stinking lawsuit!
Is that Gonna impact the Presidential Elections yoo
Will Mexico start suing American chain saw manufacturers for cartel dismemberment’s?
No, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety isn’t a chainsaw control organization and Everytown is pushing this lawsuit for Mexico.
Are you telling me a midget Jew living on the down low with his young, black, male lover in Bermuda has this much power?
I do not understand any foreign person or government having the right to sue an American citizen, company, or government is the United States. The Supreme Court should not allow this.
What the hell are you on? What kind of asinine stupid and downright evil proposal is that? It would automatically and by definition turn the US justice system into an injustice system that could not be supported by any decent person.
As for the Supreme Court “not allowing” it, what authority do you imagine it has to “allow” or “not allow” it? Where in the constitution would it derive such authority?
Mexico should not sue the gun manufacturers, their suit should be against Obama and Holder that let this happen. Seriously, letting any foreign government sue American companies when they are sending millions of illegals and tons of drugs across our border is madness.
Mexico is claiming 80-90% of seized guns are of American origin. This figure was debunked decades ago. 80-90% of guns checked by serial number are found to come from the US. The rub is that guns’ serial numbers aren’t checked unless they’re suspected of originating in the US. The percentage of illegal guns in Mexico that come from the US is considerably smaller than what Mexico is claiming in its suit.
Exactly. Regardless of whether the suit should be heard at all, the fact is that Mexico’s factual assertions are all very unlikely to be true.
¿De pie? ¡No necesitamos estar de pie!
Time to return the favor, and sue the Mexican government for a trillion or so for deliberately flooding the US with drugs and gangbangers.
Or lob a nuke into the Mexican Capitol and obliterate the almost-as-bad-as-the-US Mexican politicos who caused the problems in the first place and who get rich on causing misery.
I’m good either way.
I cannot with these people:
I stopped reading here. Articles need to be proofread before posting.
Forgive them. Just like the comment section, the article composition program has no edit button.
I agree that articles should be proofread, but what is your problem with that sentence? Its informality? It’s perfectly cromulent English.
This was all the doing of the BHO administration for not shutting down that operation when they had the opportunity, even when it became publicly exposed. It took negative publicity and deaths in the US for them to finally shut it down, and I surmise it had everything to do with elections and nothing to do with their legal responsibilities to protect US citizens.