Another brief supporting Smith & Wesson's defense against Mexican interference in the American firearms industry came from an unexpected source, using new but compelling arguments. The House of Representatives' bipartisan legal advisory group submitted a recommendation Tuesday, saying Mexico's move violates the Constitution's separation of powers.
The brief states that if the First Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling overturning a lower court's decision that Mexico could not sue remains in effect, the House of Representatives' privilege to legislate based on the U.S. It is conclusively asserted that the above is invalid. Constitution (Article 1, Section 1, Section 1: “All Legislative Powers hereby conferred shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'') Dear Representative. ”)
The New American has been following the development of the Mexican government's unusual and dangerous efforts to use its country's horrific gun violence (15 times higher than the United States) to impose anti-gun policies on the American gun industry. . In October, TNA announced that the notoriously anti-gun First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is made up almost entirely of judges nominated by the left-leaning Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden, was granted an exception to a law passed by Congress in 2005. He pointed out that he had given a judgment that seemed To protect the firearms industry from lawsuits like the Lawful Commerce Protection of Arms Industries Act (PLCAA).
exception
The exception is that a lawsuit can be brought if the defendant can be shown to have knowingly contributed to the “proximate cause” of the plaintiff's injury. As attorneys representing Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gun manufacturers named in the lawsuit pointed out, the First Circuit held that “Mexico prohibits U.S. gun companies from aiding and abetting gun trafficking.'' “Plausibly alleges a violation of federal law…proximate cause.'' These are some of the many widespread damages and costs Mexico incurs from cartel violence. ”
“We find that Mexico's complaint plausibly asserts the types of claims that are legally exempt from the PLCAA's general prohibition,” wrote Judge William J. Kayatta, who was appointed by then-President Barack Obama. judge,” he wrote in the letter.
Kayatta added:
A close reading of the complaint states that the defendants knew there was a high demand for their guns among Mexican drug cartels and identified the dealers responsible for the illegal sales that gave the cartels guns. He claims to have knowledge of the illegal activity. Sales activities conducted by dealers to deliver guns to cartels.
Therefore, it is not implausible, but not in spite of, that the defendants are engaging in such conduct solely to maintain Mexico's illicit market, as the complaint alleges.
If left unchecked, Mexico's violation of the PLCAA would “shortcut the legislative process and usurp Congress's (constitutional) authority,” according to the House of Representatives Advisory Group. “The Constitution assigns firearms-related policy decisions to the elected representatives of the American people, subject to the constraints of the Second Amendment. It would allow the courts to make these important decisions. Such an outcome would undermine the very fabric of our nation's constitution, and the courts should not allow it.”
It expanded on potential threats not only to America's firearms industry but to the Constitution itself.
The Mexican government… seeks to hold U.S. firearms companies (appellants) accountable for the harm caused in Mexico by criminal drug cartels.
They have asked federal courts to impose regulations, such as requiring firearms to have certain features that prevent unauthorized users from firing them, but Congress has refused to do so.
This is the offspring of what the conservation laws were trying to prevent.
There is no violation of law
The House brief noted that American gun manufacturers did not violate any laws.
Petitioner himself has not violated any law. They sell legal products to firearms wholesalers or retailers that have a federal stamp of approval (through a government-issued license).
Additionally, the gun companies' alleged violations of the law are not the direct cause of the damage caused by the cartels.
After all, cartels are criminal enterprises.
And appellant's (legal) conduct in the United States is a far cry from the harm inflicted by the Mexican cartels. Their firearms end up in the hands of others and even cross the U.S. border into criminal organizations, which independently choose to use them in ways that cause harm.
mexican agenda
The brief then accused the Mexican government of forcing the U.S. judicial system to violate the separation of powers inherent in the U.S. government.
The Mexican government is basically trying to drag the judiciary into exercising its legislative power.
It asks lower courts to impose regulations that Congress has consistently refrained from enacting.
Such an outcome would violate the separation of powers, and is exactly what Congress sought to prevent when it passed the Protection Act. Therefore, affirming the judgment below would water down our protective laws and threaten our constitutional order.
The court should reverse the First Circuit's decision.
The high court had an opportunity to do just that during its March 1015 oral argument, with its opinion expected next June.
Related articles:
Supreme Court agrees to reconsider Mexico's case against American shooter
