13 States Back Mexican Gov’t’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Makers

[redcon1]

by JORDAN MICHAELS on FEBRUARY 10, 2022
The Mexican government announced last summer its intention to sue U.S. gun makers for allegedly facilitating the trafficking of weapons to criminals in Mexico. Now, attorneys general in 13 states and Washington, D.C., have filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit.


The brief accuses Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Ruger, Glock, Century Arms, Barrett, and Colt; as well as gun distributor Interstate Arms of knowingly violating Connecticut and Massachusetts laws that govern trade practices and consumer protections.

Lawyers take aim at the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law designed to shield gun makers from frivolous lawsuits like the one Mexico is seeking to bring.


“In most industries, companies are well-aware that they can be held accountable if their product is defective or harmful to consumers — firearms should be no different,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the AG’s who signed the brief. “While the [PLCAA] may grant firearms manufacturers some protection, it is not a free pass to knowingly allow their products to land in dangerous hands.”

 

[CapnMac]

While worthy of scorn or dudgeon, it's not really on-topic nor appropriate for Legal.

 

[Frank Ettin]

While worthy of scorn or dudgeon, it's not really on-topic nor appropriate for Legal.

Pretty much, although a serious, evidence based discussion of the underlying legal principles could be.

I’ll leave this open for a bit to see if anyone is interested. In the meantime, I deleted some off-topic posts.

 

[CherokeeGunslinger]

The idea of the scope of the PLCAA is that it absolves gun companies of liability for damages caused by its customers on American soil. The whole argument with the Sandy Hook lawsuit was that Remington and Bushmaster caused damages by advertising their guns as macho and manly, attracting unstable customers (I'm not saying any of this is true, I'm explaining the legal rationale).

In this case, I don't see much of an argument for the same reasons as the Sandy Hook lawsuit. This is largely the result of firearms trafficking by people unaffiliated with gun companies. We could talk about how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives became involved in firearms trafficking to Mexico, and how most of these smuggled guns are stolen, but that's a topic for a different thread.

This is ultimately a lawsuit intended to enact gun control via the judiciary. Mexico has absolutely no legal argument for damages against these gun companies. This is what lawyers would refer to as "bootstrapping."

 

[Frank Ettin]

It looks like we’re not going to get a serious, evidence based discussion of the legal principles involved.

Closed.