The nation of Mexico has profound problems. They don’t control much of their own country, for example, with the cartels controlling a sizeable portion of land where the government holds no sway.
Of course, there are reasons to think the Mexican government isn’t too bothered by this. However, they do seem to take issue with how the cartels are supposedly getting guns. They blame American gun manufacturers, and they’ve been fighting to hold them “accountable” in court.
That case is about to be before the Supreme Court.
Well, sort of.
A federal law that protects the firearm industry didn’t stop the parents of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting from going after the gun maker.
But in the first test of the law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the justices are expected to cast a more skeptical eye on Mexico’s attempt to hold American gun companies responsible for the violence caused by drug cartels armed with U.S.-made weapons.
This time, gun violence prevention groups worry the Supreme Court could side with gun makers in a way that would go far beyond this dispute between Mexico and American gun companies.
”People in the United States” are ”suffering, being shot, being killed,” said David Pucino, legal director at Giffords Law Center, a gun violence prevention group. He worries the Supreme Court will take away a tool for going after clear law breaking by gun companies.
These suits seek compensation for injuries and are also aimed at promoting safer firearm designs, keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and placing part of the blame for gun violence on the industry.
Gun rights groups, on the other hand, argue that Mexico is trying to bankrupt the American firearms industry and undermine the Second Amendment.
“Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s,” the National Rifle Association told the Supreme Court. Mexico has only one gun store, universal background checks and issues fewer than 50 gun permits a year, according to filings.
And more broadly, business groups are worried that if gun makers are considered liable for gun violence in Mexico, it would invite all kinds of lawsuits against all companies − not just gun makers −when their products are used in the wrong way.
That last part is particularly interesting because, yeah, that door may well open and a lot of people will get hammered for things that third parties do with various products.
For example, it’s a very simple leap to see Kershaw or Benchmark be sued because someone used one of their knives to hurt someone. It’s not difficult to see Toyota get sued because someone else drove recklessly and killed someone. It’s just a small step into this bizarre world where literally no company can exist without some fear of their products being misused and them being held liable.
In the case of Mexico, absolutely no one believes that the gun manufacturers are just handing guns over to the cartels. In most cases, they know that these companies aren’t selling to the straw buyers who smuggle guns south directly, either. They’re selling to gun stores who are then selling firearms unknowingly to gun traffickers who are then handing them over to the cartels.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will decide if the lawsuit can continue or if the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will hold firm.
Frankly, I’ll be shocked if Mexico comes out victorious on this one.
If they do, though, while it might open the door for more lawsuits to take place, it doesn’t mean that such lawsuits will be victorious in court.
What it might well mean, though, is that gun manufacturers are going to have to budget for legal matters that will probably, at a minimum, stifle innovation and new product development. It may also end civilian firearm sales one way or another.
And that’s where we have an issue, because no one should be OK with a foreign power infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. I’m not OK with any power infringing on that right, much less another nation that is looking for a scapegoat for its own failures.
But we’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter.
Read the full article here
