MEXICO suing US firearms manufacturers

[DaleA]

Yep. MEXICO is suing US gun manufacturers

over fire arms that flow from the United States across the border and into criminal hands in Mexico

Really?

I don't suppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) would apply because it's a foreign country doing the suing, or would it?

Heck, I don't even know if this is a serious thing or not. I mean what kind of precident would this set for all kinds of stuff? I'd personally like to sue Swiss chocolate manufacturers for the 4 pounds of extra weight I carry around. (Sure, 4 pounds, ha, ha.)

Anybody have any idea about how seriously the gun manufacturers will have to take this?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/me...=U531#comments

[FITASC]

Maybe we should sue Mexico for allowing drug cartels to poison our people.....Actually, if they want to sue anyone, I guess they sue those government folks responsible for that Fast and Furious fiasco???

[44 AMP]

I'm sure their lawyers are laughing about this, all the way to the bank.

Note a few things, one being that they didn't file suit in any international court, they filed in federal court in Massachusetts!

Note that they did NOT include the US Federal govt in their lawsuit.

Note that Mexico HAS no domestic firearms industry so ALL the guns come from somewhere else.

And, one thing I wonder about, why are they suing US gunmakers (and not the federal govt), NOW????

Also, one other thing to note, the report is about the filing of the lawsuit, and says nothing about whether or not the court will hear it. No doubt because at this time that decision has yet to be made.

Do explain where, in US law, a foreign govt has standing to sue US companies for the criminal acts of foreign citizens in a foreign country.
(and that is just the very tip of the iceberg of arguments against the validity of the lawsuit).

I simply cannot see their moral justification suing US gun makers for their criminal problems.
Smells to me like a scam looking for a cash out of court settlement, but, of course I could be wrong about that.......

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Lol, if it is true, which would be ridiculous for Mexico to do on their own, then you would have to ask the question Who would put them up to this? Who is against the firearm manufacturers? Who is now doing more shaky nonsense then any time we have seen in history?
Yea, it smells all right and you know where the smell always comes from. And it ain't Mexico. Perhaps we should send someone over to find the "Root" Cause.

[Tom Servo]

Wow, that's weird. They're currently working with Sig Sauer to order a ton of assault rifles. Interestingly, Sig is not one of the defendants in the lawsuit.

[44 AMP]

Bunch of years back, the US "sold" (was the word used, but I think "gave" is more accurate) a bunch of M16s to Mexico. The majority of those guns rapidly "walked" into the hands of the cartels, via deserting soldiers taking the gun with them, or soldiers just outright selling their issue weapons to the drug lords.

I find it ironic that after "supplying" the cartels themselves, the Mexican govt is now blaming US gun makers for the problems the Mexican govt helped cause.

Criminal misuse of ANYTHING by 2nd, 3rd or 23rd parties in not the fault of the manufacturer. Ever.

[DaleA]

Here's another article that quotes from the NY Times (I can't go to the NY Times) that gives a little more information...apparently this is a 10 billion dollar law suit. It also included this info:

Firearms policy expert and University of California, Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler said the billions dollar lawsuit was a “long shot,” the AP reported.

“It is a bold and innovative lawsuit,” Winkler said. “We haven’t seen anything like this before. The gun manufacturers have enjoyed broad immunity from lawsuits for now two decades.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...?ocid=msedgntp

[44 AMP]

“It is a bold and innovative lawsuit,” Winkler said. “We haven’t seen anything like this before. The gun manufacturers have enjoyed broad immunity from lawsuits for now two decades.”

"we haven't seen anything like this before.."
I guess big city mayors suing gun makers is enough different from Mexico suing gun makers that, "we've never seen it before..."

The threat of such lawsuits was pushed during the Clinton administration, and resulted in the passage of the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) a few years later in 2005.

Lots of people say it gives broad immunity against lawsuits, and imply it protects gun makers from being sued for any reason, which, it does not do.

The two big points in the PLCAA are simple and clear.
1) The gun maker is NOT responsible for harm due to criminal acts committed with their firearms.
2) The gun maker IS responsible for harm resulting from design or manufacturing defects.

This is exactly the same as every other commercial product made and or sold in this country.

One wonders if the Mexican govt (or at least the people in it bringing the lawsuit) are unaware of this? Or if they are, and think it doesn't matter, or apply to their claim??

[Tom Servo]

One wonders if the Mexican govt (or at least the people in it bringing the lawsuit) are unaware of this?

Actually, I'm wondering if there are American gun-control advocates helping with this.

They recently got Remington to settle for $33 million in a lawsuit related to Sandy Hook, and they've been pushing numerous lawsuits that should be invalidated by the PLCAA. The timing and method seems awfully coincidental.

[DaleA]

Kind of seems to be if you're in charge and don't like a law you can just ignore the law.

(I realize that's not the way it's suppose to be but it seems to me to be increasingly the way things are.)

[44 AMP]

Might also be interesting to see who is actually paying for this. IS it the Mexican govt, entirely on their own, out of their own pocket???

OR is it being funded, in whole, or part by some international billionaire "man of mystery"???

Were I a betting man, I'd put some money on Soros or someone like him "helping and supporting the cause"...

[5whiskey]

Actually, I'm wondering if there are American gun-control advocates helping with this.

They recently got Remington to settle for $33 million in a lawsuit related to Sandy Hook, and they've been pushing numerous lawsuits that should be invalidated by the PLCAA. The timing and method seems awfully coincidental.

OR is it being funded, in whole, or part by some international billionaire "man of mystery"???

Were I a betting man, I'd put some money on Soros or someone like him "helping and supporting the cause"...

I got the exact same vibe and feeling as you two. I think this is a “creative” angle someone is trying to exploit (or throw poop against the wall to see if it sticks). Either way, dollars to donuts the Mexican government didn’t think this up all on their own. There are so many things we could sue Mexico for that should have far more standing on its face than this, yet we don’t because what are we gonna get out of a court in Mexico? Yet they sue here because someone somewhere thinks the “time could be right.” I smell a rat.

[FITASC]

Were I a betting man, I'd put some money on Soros or someone like him "helping and supporting the cause"...

My money's on Bloomberg

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FITASC

My money's on Bloomberg

Mine's on Soros.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

They recently got Remington to settle for $33 million in a lawsuit related to Sandy Hook, and they've been pushing numerous lawsuits that should be invalidated by the PLCAA. The timing and method seems awfully coincidental.

Can't be that recent since the auction breaking up Remington was last fall.

Under the same corporation that drove Remington to bankruptcy? Just another nail in the coffin to them.

[Aguila Blanca]

You don't consider July 28, 2021 to be recent?

[ballardw]

I thought "Remington" was broken up last year. So who actually settled? Not a lawyer and I don't really understand who makes a settlement in the name of company sold off in pieces.

[natman]

Originally Posted by ballardw

Can't be that recent since the auction breaking up Remington was last fall.

Under the same corporation that drove Remington to bankruptcy? Just another nail in the coffin to them.

As I understand it it was Remington's insurance company that settled.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

As I understand it it was Remington's insurance company that settled.

That's the way it usually works. When a corporation buys insurance, the terms of the policy basically leave it entirely up to the insurance company whether to fight a lawsuit in court or cut their losses and settle. The insurance company doesn't care how much or how little responsibility their insured has -- the decision is made entirely based on which route will cost the insurance company less money.

How bad does this get? Example:

Many years ago I worked for an A/E (architecture and engineering) firm that was hired to design repairs to the roof of a shopping mall after a fire that broke out on the roof when a worker misused a torch. The town where the mall was located had a volunteer fire department. One of the volunteers showed up drunk, slipped off a ladder, and injured his back.

We were hired after all this had taken place. Months after the repairs had been designed and completed, we received notice that (along with a cast of thousands) we were being sued by this firefighter because our work had [allegedly] contributed to his injuries. Remember -- at the time he was injured, we had not been hired. At that time we had NOTHING to do with the property.

Our insurance company wanted to settle rather than defend us in court. To them, it didn't matter that it was a frivolous lawsuit with zero basis in reality -- they thought that was the cheaper route. The boss actually had to sue the insurance company to force them to defend the case. Once that happened, we were immediately released from the case.

Why did it matter? For one, because if the insurance company settles, it's a black mark and out premiums would have been much higher for the next three or five years. Second, when evaluating architects and engineers many corporations routinely investigate whether the firms have had any judgments against them.

[LeverGunFan]

It looks like Mexico has done some court shopping, as they filed this action in a Boston federal court. You would think that filing it in one of the border states - Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California - would make more sense as regards to travel and having familiarity with border security.

[44 AMP]

If any part of their claim is about the harm being caused in Mexico due to US made guns crossing the border illegally, then I would think one of the border states would be a more logical choice of venue.

However, Mass courts do have a long history of not being favorable to gun owners, so,,,, draw your own conclusions...

isn't S&W still located in MA? They are one of the companies being sued, so MAYBE that's their reasoning???

One does wonder, if, harm from US guns crossing the border into Mexico illegally is a valid premise, then isn't suing Mexico for harm resulting from Mexican people crossing the border into the US illegally also valid??

Seems so to me, but I doubt govts see it that way...

[DaleA]

I'm interested in the case but I freely admit the whole legal thing is over my head.

To prove that I don't understand this stuff I'll ask the following question, why wouldn't Mexico sue in some form of the World Court or International Court. It's my impression those courts don't like the US much.

[Mulebuk Mojo]

@DaleA,

You can't be that out of touch because that is one heck of a good question !

Here's my 1 1/2 cent take, as some have pointed out here it's a set-up by certain entities to go after gun rights in America.
The reason why the insurance company caves because they can't starve them out, the families of Sandy Hook have money.

But again it's all cleverly orchestrated. And the real reason why Mexico disarmed their citizens several years back because the real government down there is in fact the Cartels.

[44 AMP]

To all who are considering posting comments, and those who already have, remember where you are.

This is the Law and Civil Rights forum.

(re) READ THE FORUM RULES!

We do not do politics here.

Discussion of actions and proposed acts must be done in the framework of how they are affected by our laws and how they may affect our civil rights, and the primary focus is on our firearms rights.

Bringing politics and political agendas (real OR imagined) into the discussion here is not just off topic, it is OFF LIMITS.

There are lots of other places on the Internet to discuss politics and such things. This is not one of them.

[5whiskey]

Dale, while international courts may tend to not be fond of America, suing a manufacturer in a nation where a product they manufactured causes harm in another nation after being ILLEGALLY imported is probably a bright line sticking point of “not going anywhere.” The more appropriate target of that suit would be the individuals who introduce the item in the country.

Besides, cartels still cause more havoc with full-auto AK47s than anything else. If anything they could sue America for the wars in the Middle East making the supply of those limited, and hence cartels now often use more accurate weapons as a result. This is purely political, and likely a concoction of soros or Bloomberg as previously mentioned.