Today's News

[44 AMP]

Some good news, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rules that Mexico suing US gunmakers (specifically S&W) for damages caused by criminals in their country, has no case.

While this does involve guns and gun makers, it is not a 2nd Amendment issue.

[Tom Servo]

Here's the text of the opinion.

Justice Kagan, writing for a 9-0 majority, found that the PLCAA prohibits Mexico's claim that American gun manufacturers are negligent. She also calls the AR-15 "the most popular rifle in the country."

This bit from Justice Jackson is interesting:

Tellingly, that failure exposes Mexico’s lawsuit as precisely what Congress passed PLCAA to prevent. PLCAA was Congress’s response to a flood of civil lawsuits that sought to hold the firearms industry responsible for down-stream lawbreaking by third parties. . Activists had deployed litigation in an effort to compel firearms manufacturers and associated entities to adopt safety measures and practices that exceeded what state or federal statutes required.

Congress expressed concern that these lawsuits “attempt[ed] to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch.” PLCAA embodies Congress’s express rejection of such efforts—stymying those who, as
Congress put it, sought “to accomplish through litigation that which they have been unable to achieve by legislation.”

Put differently, PLCAA reflects Congress’s view that the democratic process, not litigation, should set the terms of gun control.

[44 AMP]

Don't forget the unstated (but obvious) intent of the lawsuits that the PLCAA prohibited.

The hope of driving gunmakers out of business due to the cost of having to defend themselves over and over in courts.

In the specific case of the suit from Mexico, I feel that the Mexican govt was trying to line their pockets with money from American companies for their failure to control their own criminal element in their country.

It sure would be nice to not only NOT do your job, but also to get paid extra from winning a settlement in a foreign court!!

Now, since the Supreme Court has told them "you don't have a case, go away!" I wonder if they will take up the matter in a Mexican court?

And, if so, and they win (almost a certainty) can they collect from US gunmakers, if the gunmakers tell them to go pound sand?? (or something less polite? )

Or will they just give up on then entire barking stupid idea, since the US has shown to be not quite as gullible as they thought??

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Justice Kagan, writing for a 9-0 majority...

I did not expect unanimity.

[natman]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I did not expect unanimity.

Considering that there's a federal law specifically prohibiting this sort of lawsuit it was pretty much a slam dunk. In order to rule otherwise, you'd have to write an opinion to support your vote, and even the liberal judges in SCOTUS weren't willing to come up with an excuse to do so.

Which makes the flagrant activism of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in supporting this case all the more egregious.

[Aguila Blanca]

I didn't expect unanimity, either, and I was even more surprised that Justice Kagan wrote the opinion.

[44 AMP]

Maybe it was written as a way of doing penance??

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP Some good news, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rules that Mexico suing US gunmakers (specifically S&W) for damages caused by criminals in their country, has no case.

While this does involve guns and gun makers, it is not a 2nd Amendment issue.

I strongly disagree. It most definitely is a Second Amendment issue.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would pretty much be impossible if there were no manufacturers of those arms.

While SCOTUS may not have mentioned the Second Amendment specifically, the PLCAA does.....quite emphatically in the first paragraph:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901

(a)Findings
Congress finds the following:
(1)The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2)The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

(3)Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(4)The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act [26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.], and the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.].

(5)Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(6)The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7)The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(8)The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

(b)Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
(1)To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2)To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3)To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4)To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5)To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

(6)To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.

(7)To exercise congressional power under article IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution.

(Pub. L. 109–92, § 2, Oct. 26, 2005, 119 Stat. 2095.)

If the PLCAA isn't a Second Amendment issue I don't know what is.

[Aguila Blanca]

WOW!

Jackson filed a separate, concurring opinion. I am shocked. I was quite surprised that she even voted with the majority on this one. To see that she filed a concurring opinion is astonishing.

[44 AMP]

If the PLCAA isn't a Second Amendment issue I don't know what is.

I agree with you on that.

Some might consider it splitting hairs, but as I see it, this case was not a challenge to the PLCAA, or our 2nd amendment rights, it was about whether or not a foreign entity (in this case, the Mexican govt) can sue a US corporation for damages caused by foreign citizens committing crimes in a foreign country, under existing US law.

SCOTUS ruled they can't.

There was no challenge to the rights of American citizens under US law.

Their entire claim was, at base, "because you made this, and it was used in a crime in our country, you owe us money". Which, to me is not a direct 2nd Amendment rights matter.

[natman]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

I strongly disagree. It most definitely is a Second Amendment issue.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would pretty much be impossible if there were no manufacturers of those arms.

While SCOTUS may not have mentioned the Second Amendment specifically, the PLCAA does.....quite emphatically in the first paragraph:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901


If the PLCAA isn't a Second Amendment issue I don't know what is.

You're right, but this case wasn't tried as a 2A issue and shouldn't have been.

If you have a law that clearly and directly supports your case, use it rather than getting involved in nuances of the meaning of a more general principle, i.e. the Second Amendment. Mexico was trying to hold S&W responsible for the criminal actions of third parties. PLCAA says you can't do that. Case closed.

[Aguila Blanca]

This was the right decision, for the right reason(s).

That sad part is that we even need a law to protect lawful manufacturers of lawful products against lawsuits relating to actions the manufacturers aren't involved in and have no control over.