The Supreme Court agreed Monday to reconsider the First Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the federal law protecting America's firearms industry from frivolous (and costly) lawsuits is flawed. The Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that upheld that federal law and instead found that these firearm manufacturers' design, marketing, distribution, and manufacturing decisions were insufficiently linked to Mexico's appalling rate of gun violence (15 times that of gun violence). The court ruled that Mexico's claims that it was linked to the US were “plausible”. !) Override federal law protections.
Therefore, the protections Congress provided in 2005 when it enacted the Lawful Commerce in Arms Protection Act (PLCAA) were ineffective. This law provides for “the filing of a civil liability action against a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or importer of a firearm or ammunition for damages, injunctive, or other relief resulting from the misuse of the product by another.” or a law prohibiting its continuation.”
The 9th Circuit is made up of 11 judges, including nine appointed by Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden, and has found flaws in the law and lawsuits filed by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers. The court was forced into session to allow the case to proceed. The court ruled that gun manufacturers' decisions were a “proximate cause” of gun violence in Mexico.
Legal, plain and simple
The case is flimsy, but expensive. Remington Arms paid hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against it and went bankrupt. Mexico wants the same outcome for the entire U.S. firearms industry.
In Smith & Wesson's motion for review by the Supreme Court, which the high court accepted on Monday, the company argued that:
Mexico's lawsuit will be of no use in American courts.
The federal Lawful Protection of Arms Commerce Act (PLCAA) eliminates civil lawsuits to hold gun companies liable for harm caused by downstream criminal misuse of their products.
And it is almost impossible to imagine a lawsuit that is more clearly prohibited by the PLCAA than this one.
The district court agreed and dismissed the case in its entirety.
But the (liberal) First Circuit reversed. The court held that the Mexican case qualifies as an exception to the PLCAA, which allows a defendant to knowingly sue for a violation of firearms laws that causes direct injury to the plaintiff.
Within this exception, the First Circuit held that Mexico plausibly argued that U.S. gun companies were violating federal law prohibiting aiding and abetting gun trafficking, and that their normal business practices were It was held to be the proximate cause of much of the extensive damage and costs incurred by Mexico. cartel violence.
huge impact
Smith & Wesson's petition points out the implications if the Supreme Court upholds the First Circuit's decision:
The stakes of this case highlight why a reconsideration is needed.
Without this court's intervention, Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit would plague the U.S. firearms industry for years, attempting to bully the industry into implementing numerous gun control measures. This will result in costly and invasive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign. It has been repeatedly rejected by American voters.
Worse, as long as the decision (by the First Circuit Court) remains good law, we are destined to see many similar lawsuits filed by other governments, both domestic and foreign, all of which seek to shift blame for criminal violence against their own countries. is trying to distract from its political failures. It's at the base of the American firearms industry.
Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the cost of the case is not only for the defendant, but more importantly for those who depend on the firearms industry to effectively enforce their Second Amendment rights. It would also be devastating for millions of law-abiding Americans.
This is why Congress enacted the PLCAA in the first place. As Smith & Wesson pointed out,
This type of legislation is exactly what Congress enacted the PLCAA to avoid.
In short, this case boils down to a clash of national values. Mexico has made no secret that it despises this country's approach to firearms and wants to use the U.S. court system to impose domestic gun restrictions on the United States that the American people themselves want. The normal political process would never accept it.
However, even if the complaint is contained in a complaint and submitted in writing, it has no legal basis.
A review of this court is desperately needed.
The First Circuit's reversal opens the door to other lawsuits against the American firearms industry, potentially bankrupting them over time. It could also lead to lawsuits against other U.S. companies. Think of the breweries and car manufacturers that develop products that cause horrific harm, pain, and suffering to innocent people due to drunk driving.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to permanently shut down such legislation.
Related articles:
Mexico's 'longshot' lawsuit against American firearms maker dismissed
Amicus brief opposing Mexico's efforts to eliminate the U.S. gun industry
