The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars the lawsuit in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The unanimous 9-0 decision, authored by one of the most liberal left Associate Justices, should send a clear signal to end these nuisance lawsuits. But of course, that isn’t going to happen.
Mexico’s President announced they will be continuing with a separate lawsuit against the distributors and retailers excluded from the case just dismissed by SCOTUS. This case, Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, Inc makes identical claims against the distributors and five firearm retailers, all Federal Firearm Retailers (FFLs) as the previous case.
Mexico claims these distributors and retailers are aiding and abetting Mexican cartels use of firearms against the Mexican people. In this lawsuit, Mexico is not alleging any U.S. crimes were committed by the distributors and retailers. In fact, there is no allegation of any sales not fully compliant with all state and federal laws, including completing ATF Form 4473 and background checks on the purchasers. Multiple sales of handguns and, as is required in border states, multiple sales of centerfire rifles have all be reported to the ATF and local law enforcement as required by law.
What Mexico is alleging is these distributors and retailers had an “opportunity and obligation” to stop the sales of firearms likely to be illegally trafficked to Mexico. They continue to allege “design and marketing decisions” that could “stimulate cartel members’ demand for their products”, as a ploy to worm their way into an exception to the PLCAA. Allegedly, sales of the very same products popular in the United States should be a “red flag” these firearms may somehow unlawfully find their way into Mexico and into the hands of the cartels and used criminally be cartel members. Yet, the Mexico lawsuit does not identify any specific firearms sold by these retailers and later recovered at Mexican crime scenes.
It is worth repeating the PLCAA is a federal law which protects gun manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for any ‘harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.’ The law was designed to prevent nuisance lawsuits from being filed for actions clearly beyond the control of the firearm industry.
The fact that Mexico’s lawsuits were allowed to proceed in the first place is a problem. While joining with the majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas also authored a significant concurring opinion in the case and advised, “In future cases, courts should more fully examine the meaning of ‘violation’ under the PLCAA.”
“It seems to me that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the ‘violation.’ Allowing plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would force many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their criminal guilt in a civil proceeding, without the full panoply of protections that we otherwise afford to criminal defendants,” Thomas wrote. “And, these defendants might even include ones who were cleared in an earlier proceeding, such as through a noncharging decision or a not-guilty or not -liable verdict. Such collateral adjudication would be at best highly unusual and would likely raise serious constitutional questions that would counsel in favor of a narrower interpretation.” “Particularly given the PLCAA’s aim of protecting gun manufacturers from litigation … this issue warrants careful consideration,”
What is really going on? As I pointed out in my original post – Mexico and Unites States Gun Control – this is all being driven by the very same billionaire/millionaire and taxpayer funded anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment lobbyists and lawyers who are writing laws for cities, states and the federal government in the United States and the rest of the world. These rabid anti-gun groups have been and are continuing to fund Mexico’s legal actions against Unites States firearm manufacturers, distributors, retailers, transportation companies and individuals.
They are going after the firearm industry from the manufacturers down to the smallest retailer with lawsuits designed to cripple their business and force them out of the civilian firearm market. Failing this, they would be content to have the courts impose such severe and limiting conditions that very few would be willing to risk the liability of selling firearms not specifically approved by the gun control community to civilians.
Mexico’s lawsuits are really about gun control in the United States and restricting what you and I can purchase, carry and use to protect ourselves and our families. With failures in the courts from District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Garland v. Cargill, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the gun control community has been searching for new and innovative ways to restrict firearm rights.
As intended by the gun control community, lawsuits like these will continue as long as they can find willing dupes to allow their names to be used as plaintiffs and ideology driven judges willing to twist and bend federal law and Supreme Court rulings. Meanwhile, millions of dollars will be spent by those caught up in these nuisance lawsuits to defend themselves and our Second Amendment protected rights.
Bob
Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #Mexico, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com