Supreme Court to hear arguments over Mexican government's suit against U.S. gunmakers
Supreme Court to hear arguments over Mexican government's suit against U.S. gunmakers
The Supreme Court is set to consider the Mexican government's effort to hold U.S. gun companies accountable for violence involving trafficked firearms.
Summary
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit brought by Mexico seeking to hold U.S. gun companies liable for firearm trafficking that fuels cartel violence.
Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not shield gunmakers who knowingly facilitate illegal sales.
Lower courts disagreed on whether the "predicate exception" applies, prompting the Supreme Court to step in.
If the ruling favors Mexico, it could open legal avenues for similar suits. Gunmakers contend Mexico's claims fail due to multiple intervening steps before guns reach cartels.
You're viewing a single thread.
In the United States the sale of Firearms is regulated by the Federal Government and / or and individual State itself. All NEW firearm sales must go through an FFL. In many places that is also true for used firearms but even where it isn't its STILL one person selling a firearm to someone else.
To make it absolutely clear at no point in any firearms transaction is any normal person purchasing firearms directly from a firearms manufacturer.
In the case of entities, such as a Gun Store / FFL, who can purchase new firearms directly from a manufacturer there's still no direct sales happening and the sale of those firearms is controlled by Federal Law.
So HOW is it the fault of US Firearm Manufacturers when people purchase firearms and traffic them across the southern border?
I would think that they could be liable in the same way pharmacists were for the opioid epidemic.
If they can prove the manufacturers were supplying a 'suspicious' number of firearms to a couple of dealers like the pharmacists were supplying a suspicious number of pills to pill mill doctors.
I would think that they could be liable in the same way pharmacists were for the opioid epidemic.
In the opioid epidemic the Pharmacists got into trouble because they had relationships with the manufacturers, the Doctors, and the Patients. So in this instance the best fit for your analogy is the Firearms Dealers as they are the ones who have relationships with the Manufacturers, BATFE, and the buyers.
If they can prove the manufacturers were supplying a ‘suspicious’ number of firearms to a couple of dealers...
It doesn't work like that. The sale of firearms from the Manufacturer to the Wholesaler is regulated by the Federal Government because they set the rules. In many cases the Manufacturer doesn't even know what dealer is going to end up with how many firearms or of what type. Some of them certainly do but Interstate Arms nor Smith & Wesson are not special in that regard.
I do see your point about pharmacists being a better analog for gun dealers, but Purdue pharmaceutical was also liable in the opioid crisis, and that would be a much better analog /equivalent for the manufacturer.
It doesn't work like that . . . In many cases the Manufacturer doesn't even know . . . Some of them certainly do
Maybe I'm misreading the 2nd paragraph, but it seems like you're saying: it doesn't work like that, except when it does
By their logic, you can eliminate your liability for any evidently harmful product by installing a middleman.