The Supreme Court on Mexico’s lawsuit to sue American gun manufacturers

[tvc184]

Mexico sued several US firearms manufacturers as being responsible for murders in Mexico  

It was not completely unexpected to be a winning case for firearms manufacturers but the unanimous decision, authored by Kagan, is a welcome sight.

The case is Smith & Wesson et al. V. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico)

Smith & Wesson was sued along with six other gun manufacturers (Colt, Glock, Ruger, Baretta, etc.) in the United States by Mexico. The claim (that might have shut them down) was that those manufacturers were responsible for gun violence in Mexico and because the cartels used American manufactured guns. Mexico claimed that since the manufacturers did not strictly police or regulate who bought goes from FFL’s, they were responsible.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico ruled in favor of Mexico saying the suit could go forward. The firearms manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court and their ruling was issued a few hours ago.

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits in state and federal courts unless it can be shown that the manufacturer was complicit by aiding and abetting the illegal gun transfers. Mexico showed no evidence that any of the manufacturers were knowingly helping the drug cartels to obtain the guns.

The decision was authored by Elana Kagan who in her order wrote….
“Finally, Mexico's allegations about the manufacturers’ design and marketing decisions" add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers' production of "military style" assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 ri-fles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.
(The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too”

So in the Opinion of the Court written by Kagan, the AR15, AK47 and similar guns are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers”. She then noted that the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country.

That language may come up in the next session or two when the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons ban in some states under the premise that they should not be included in the common use test in the Supreme Court cases of  Heller and Bruen.

The main facts that are important here in my opinion are that even the liberal leaning justices, saw the stupidity of Mexico‘s claim and issued a ruling to protect gun manufacturers against what I think is a frivolous claim and that Kagan wrote the opinion. In doing so wrote that the assault rifles and even sniper rifles were widely legal and purchased by consumers and that the AR15 was the most popular rifle in the country.

The flabbergasting part is that the First Circuit Court thought that the manufacturers should be liable if one of their weapons was later used to commit a crime. I guess in their opinion, if a drunk driver killed someone, the family should be able to sue Exxon-Mobil for manufacturing the gasoline. 

 

[OlDawg]

12 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Mexico sued several US firearms manufacturers as being responsible for murders in Mexico  

It was not completely unexpected to be a winning case for firearms manufacturers but the unanimous decision, authored by Kagan, is a welcome sight.

The case is Smith & Wesson et al. V. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico)

Smith & Wesson was sued along with six other gun manufacturers (Colt, Glock, Ruger, Baretta, etc.) in the United States by Mexico. The claim (that might have shut them down) was that those manufacturers were responsible for gun violence in Mexico and because the cartels used American manufactured guns. Mexico claimed that since the manufacturers did not strictly police or regulate who bought goes from FFL’s, they were responsible.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico ruled in favor of Mexico saying the suit could go forward. The firearms manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court and their ruling was issued a few hours ago.

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits in state and federal courts unless it can be shown that the manufacturer was complicit by aiding and abetting the illegal gun transfers. Mexico showed no evidence that any of the manufacturers were knowingly helping the drug cartels to obtain the guns.

The decision was authored by Elana Kagan who in her order wrote….
“Finally, Mexico's allegations about the manufacturers’ design and marketing decisions" add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers' production of "military style" assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 ri-fles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.
(The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too”

So in the Opinion of the Court written by Kagan, the AR15, AK47 and similar guns are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers”. She then noted that the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country.

That language may come up in the next session or two when the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons ban in some states under the premise that they should not be included in the common use test in the Supreme Court cases of  Heller and Bruen.

The main facts that are important here in my opinion are that even the liberal leaning justices, saw the stupidity of Mexico‘s claim and issued a ruling to protect gun manufacturers against what I think is a frivolous claim and that Kagan wrote the opinion. In doing so wrote that the assault rifles and even sniper rifles were widely legal and purchased by consumers and that the AR15 was the most popular rifle in the country.

The flabbergasting part is that the First Circuit Court thought that the manufacturers should be liable if one of their weapons was later used to commit a crime. I guess in their opinion, if a drunk driver killed someone, the family should be able to sue Exxon-Mobil for manufacturing the gasoline. 

 

A little surprised by Kagan, Jackson & Sotamayor. Interesting that Kagan wrote the opinion. Goes against the typical liberal mantra of ‘it’s the gun.’

Agree the characterization of AR-15 style rifles as ‘common’ will have future impacts when gun control issues try to portray them as military weapons only.