Posted on 11/04/2024 5:04:35 AM PST by MtnClimber
In 2005, the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which for the first time in American history acknowledged the Second Amendment recognizes the unalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms, was three years into the future. Anti-Liberty/gun cracktivists were pushing their latest strategy: suing gun makers for the third-party acts of people about who they had no knowledge and over who they had no control for misuse of their lawful products.
The strategy was to bankrupt American gun makers by an avalanche of nuisance lawsuits. American tort law doesn’t normally allow such suits, but their sheer volume might do the trick, even if gun makers won every suit, and they wouldn’t.
SNIP
A Massachusetts District Court used the plain language of the PLCAA to dismiss the suit, but the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal, which led the US Supreme Court to grant cert. The case will be decided during the Court’s 2025 term. The petition that led to cert raised these two legal issues:
*Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
*Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
SNIP
Bizarrely, gun makers also know our own government under Barack Obama actually trafficked guns to cartels in the Fast and Furious debacle, guns that were eventually used to murder a Border Patrol officer. His killer was convicted, but his sentence was overturned in 2024. Were gun makers responsible for that lunacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Only an ATF whistleblower stopped Operation Fast and Furious from working.
I am very unclear and what exactly this means.
Just like the addiction to opioids is the fault of regulators that did nothing after they saw the data, firearms legally or illegally purchased are not the fault of dealer or manufacturers, but the regulators that do the background checks.
Mexico is responsible for not controlling their border.
That is what confuses me, How does the US Supreme court allow Mexico to even bring such a case against our constitution?
What does it mean they allowed cert?
I can’t read the AT article as my work blocks the site.
The border must be closed until the resulting war in Mexico producing a government subservient to the USA
How come standing is not an issue for matters we are against? Why don’t we sue medico for their letting cartels operate in the US?
How is it this case is not thrown out on the face of it as it literally challenges the USA’s sovereignty and the core rights within the constitution from best I can tell.
If Mexico wins, place a 150% excise tax on the reward for damages.
wouldn’t this same logic make the federal government, and other organizations promoting the illegal alien invasion responsible for the crimes they commit?
The Mexican Cartel have attack helicopters, M60 machine guns , hand grenades and countless full auto weaponry. I’m sure the Glocks ,revolvers ,pump and auto shot guns are the real root of the problem .
Better yet, declare Mexico a failed country, place the military at the boarder and declare it closed. make it clear any trespass will now be considered potential acts of war by a rogue state.
yes I am serious.
“How does the US Supreme court allow Mexico to even bring such a case against our constitution?”
They haven’t allowed Mexico to bring the case.
They have agreed to take up the case after an Appeals Court allowed the case to continue in the Federal system.
Sounds good to me.
"Both arguments are easily resolved. American manufacturers are limited to producing only semiautomatic arms. Some still make automatic weapons, but that market is limited only to law enforcement and the military. The Firearm Owner's Protection Act established that machineguns made after May 19, 1986, cannot be owned by mere citizens."Like Democrats' lawfare, the Mexican socialists have joined the "nuisance" game. As above, "...easily resolved," once anything actually makes it to court. This is politics first, and it is assured that American "gun grabbers" are in on the game.
And, assess a nominal tariff for any person that crosses the border into the US while this is done.
Remember, the country (government) of origin pays the tariff.
It means we can sue Mexico for all the fentanyl deaths here in America.
Cert - the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), is supposed to prevent such nuisance lawsuits for misuse by third parties of lawful products. The Supreme court should have used the PLCCA to deny standing to Mexico, but they did not do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.