Image 01 Image 03

Supreme Court Will Hear Gun Industry Challenge to Mexico’s Lawsuit

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.

From Mexico’s complaint:

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


 
 0 
 
 2
Peter Moss | October 4, 2024 at 1:12 pm

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?


     
     0 
     
     0
    Joe-dallas in reply to Peter Moss. | October 4, 2024 at 1:19 pm

    irrespective of the positive or negative impact of your suggested policy change, te Nafta treaty will override


       
       0 
       
       4
      NotCoach in reply to Joe-dallas. | October 4, 2024 at 1:42 pm

      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.


       
       0 
       
       0
      oden in reply to Joe-dallas. | October 4, 2024 at 2:22 pm

      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.


     
     0 
     
     4
    TargaGTS in reply to Peter Moss. | October 4, 2024 at 1:46 pm

    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.


       
       0 
       
       2
      GWB in reply to TargaGTS. | October 4, 2024 at 1:50 pm

      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.


 
 0 
 
 13
slagothar | October 4, 2024 at 1:39 pm

Does this mean we can sue Mexico for facilitating the invasion of US?

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.


 
 0 
 
 0
healthguyfsu | October 4, 2024 at 1:50 pm

Would anyone be surprised if the lawsuit is brought by cartel-controlled sectors of the Mexican government hoping to get more money?


 
 0 
 
 0
Dolce Far Niente | October 4, 2024 at 1:50 pm

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.


 
 0 
 
 1
ChrisPeters | October 4, 2024 at 1:59 pm

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

Suddenly foreign government have standing to sue lawful US manufactureres. Weird.


 
 0 
 
 3
alaskabob | October 4, 2024 at 2:19 pm

“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.


     
     0 
     
     0
    alaskabob in reply to alaskabob. | October 4, 2024 at 2:28 pm

    “The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit in January:”… Boston… need I say more?


       
       0 
       
       1
      henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | October 4, 2024 at 4:40 pm

      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.


     
     0 
     
     0
    GWB in reply to alaskabob. | October 4, 2024 at 3:52 pm

    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.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Edward in reply to GWB. | October 4, 2024 at 6:33 pm

      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.


         
         0 
         
         1
        CommoChief in reply to Edward. | October 4, 2024 at 7:03 pm

        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…


     
     0 
     
     2
    henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | October 4, 2024 at 3:57 pm

    “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.


       
       0 
       
       0
      alaskabob in reply to henrybowman. | October 4, 2024 at 4:11 pm

      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.


 
 0 
 
 0
alaskabob | October 4, 2024 at 2:30 pm

Can the US sue Afghanistan for whatever happens to the billions of dollars in real weapons left there? I thought so….


 
 0 
 
 0
Concise | October 4, 2024 at 2:30 pm

Lawsuit? We don’t need no stinking lawsuit!

Is that Gonna impact the Presidential Elections yoo


 
 0 
 
 0
E Howard Hunt | October 4, 2024 at 2:51 pm

Will Mexico start suing American chain saw manufacturers for cartel dismemberment’s?

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.


 
 0 
 
 0
diver64 | October 4, 2024 at 5:48 pm

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.


 
 0 
 
 1
DaveGinOly | October 4, 2024 at 6:54 pm

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.


 
 0 
 
 0
McGehee 🇺🇲 Trump 2024 | October 4, 2024 at 7:43 pm

¿De pie? ¡No necesitamos estar de pie!

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.

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.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.