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.
Exhibit A: there’s like 4 gun stores in the entire country.
Case closed.
There is no way the Supremely Corrupt Court let’s countries start suing US gun manufacturers.
I think they would if more CEOs get gunned down.
Even then - I doubt it.
But it’s probably still worth testing that experiment… for science
The NRA was suddenly in favor of gun control after the Black Panthers started patrolling with guns.
The NRA was suddenly in favor of gun control after the Black Panthers started patrolling with guns.
I despise the NRA but this kind of revisionist history needs to be called out.
First off prior to 1977 the NRA had an established history of supporting Gun Control. It didn’t suddenly pop into being because of the Black Panthers.
Second when the Mulford Act was passed in 1967 it started a sea change at the NRA that culminated with the “Revolt at Cincinnati” in 1977. The NRA as an organization supported Mulford, like it had other Gun Control legislation for at least 50 years, but it’s very clear that their membership did NOT and they took over the organization to keep it from continuing.
Today’s NRA is a completely different beast than the one that existed in 1967. It’s primary faults are that it got corrupt as fuck and that it’s entirely silent whenever there’s a conflict between lawful gun owners and law enforcement.
Regardless, the point stands. The NRA wasn’t “suddenly in favor of gun control after the Black Panthers”, it already had multi-decade history of supporting Gun Control.
Modern gun control laws started in response to black people arming themselves.
From the stamp act to reagan, to bill Clinton. Reagan specifically is why California is ahead of the rest of the US on laws banning firearms, because Reagan kicked it off while Governor.
Modern gun control laws started in response to black people arming themselves.
Using the word “modern” lessens the message. Gun Control has always always always been about keeping minorities from arming themselves and the racist trash are still at it today.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/69d9d636-029c-4788-aee2-f6c306d72b39.jpeg
Can’t have Black people walking around with the ability to defend themselves from murder.
Oh… so in this case Mexico waited a bit long. Remember Operation Fast and Furious? I know this more about the manufacturers but should the licensed dealers be liable too?
Supreme court: “Hmm, sounds like you need to increase YOUR border security!”
This is going to be a fair and unbiased ruling.
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
When has the SCOTUS ever ruled against the gun lobby?
