It should strike any honest person that to claim a firearm is “defective” or that its maker is “liable for damages” because a malicious person used the weapon to harm someone makes about as much sense as suing an automobile manufacturer because a malicious person used a car to harm someone. In both cases, the assumed results necessitate acceptance of the fact that both products actually operated as designed.
Of course, few honest people would claim that gun-grabbers are peaceful. In fact, the desire to disarm peacefully-minded people is aggressive, malicious, and has proven to be one of the evilest forces in the history of man.
So, it might come as no surprise to learn that the government of Mexico and a handful of U.S. left-dominated state governments have been pushing a civil liability suit against multiple U.S. gun makers, implying that the manufacturers were “negligent” and that their products operated in some sort of “faulty” manner.
What might come as a surprise is the fact that many other state AGs are lining up to support the gun-makers to stop the case from moving ahead.
Morality, the U.S. Constitution, and a 2005 federal statute remind us that the second set of AGs are spot-on.
“Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is leading a coalition of 20 states’ attorneys general to defend the Second Amendment and the U.S. firearms industry against a lawsuit by the Mexican government that seeks to hold the gunmakers liable for gun crime south of the U.S. border.
The Mexican government is seeking $10 billion filed in a civil lawsuit against several major U.S. firearms manufacturers, saying these companies are responsible for the violence in their country.”
Yep. The gun MAKERS. Not the users.
The Mexican government is focusing on what it calls “marketing and distribution practices” that “amount to actively facilitating the trafficking of their guns in Mexico.”
Curiously, they didn’t cite Joe Biden, who was vice president when the Obama Administration got caught conducting “Operation Fast and Furious,” a George W. Bush Admin-era plan that was renamed and given the “go” to “walk” firearms into Mexico so they would fall into the hands of drug cartels, then be brought back into the U.S., where gun-grabbing politicians would use the “flood of guns” as a pretext for more gun-grab legislation.
Such savory characters.
The Mexican government also neglected to mention that it has some of the most restrictive anti-gun statutes of any American nation. As professor, attorney (he helped argue the 2007-2008 “Heller” case before the U.S. Supreme Court), Cato Institute Scholar and Independent Institute scholar David Kopel writes:
“Article 160 of the Federal Penal Code authorizes government employees to carry guns. Article 161 requires a license to carry or sell handguns. Article 162 provides penalties for violations, and also bans the stockpiling of arms without permission. Article 163 states that handguns may only be sold by mercantile establishments, not by individuals. Further, handgun carry permit applicants must post a bond, must prove their need, and must supply five character references.”
And he adds:
“The most important gun laws are contained in the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives. It establishes a Federal Arms Registry controlled by the Ministry of National Defense. Both the federal and state governments are required to conduct public information campaigns to discourage all forms of weapons ownership and carrying. Only sports-related advertising of firearms is permitted.
Title Two of the Federal Law of Firearms allows possession and carrying of handguns in a calibers of .380 or less, although some calibers are excluded, most notably .357 magnum and 9mm parabellum.
Members of agricultural collectives and other rural workers are allowed to carry the aforesaid handguns, .22 rifles, and shotguns, as long as they stay outside of urban areas, and obtain a license.”
The Mexican suit last fall was ruled ineligible to proceed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, but Reuters reports that 16 left-dominated U.S. states are involved on behalf of the Mexican appeal to the First Federal Circuit of Appeals, and they include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Which might add some valuable information to vacationers researching which states they’ll want to avoid if they hope to limit the use of their tax money going towards gun-grabbing AGs.
Reuters notes that the Mexican and leftist U.S. state governments mentioned above are targeting “Smith and Wesson Brands Inc (SWBI.O) and Sturm, Ruger and Co (RGR.N), as well as Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc, Beretta USA Corp, Colt's Manufacturing Co, Century International Arms Inc, Witmer Public Safety Group Inc and pistol-maker Glock Inc.”
But they not only have no logical or moral justification to attack these peaceful businesspeople, on the “gun-grabbing state” level, this grandstanding breaches the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, any restriction on sales and marketing also impedes on the right to freedom of speech purportedly protected by the First Amendment, and it breaches a major 2005 statute.
Which is how this obnoxious push by these obnoxious government agents actually serves as an excellent learning opportunity.
Here’s the lesson:
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to create the court system above the state supreme courts and below the federal Supreme Court. As a result, Congress can write legislation that prohibits certain kinds of suits/cases from entering those Congressionally-created federal courts. And in 2005, a GOP-dominated Congress passed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA) to block liability suits against gun makers from entering federal courts. As a result, cross-state suits against gun makers for “civil liability” when the firearms operate as they were designed to operate -- those are blocked.
Which appears to be something that Joe Biden doesn't like.
Indeed, our final major lesson comes in the fact that Biden is rabid to see the PLCAA killed. He not only has tried unconstitutional “Executive Branch” administrative attacks on gun parts and accessories to be instituted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE/ATF), he has, since at least 2021, demanded the removal of PLCAA.
Perhaps he might want to learn from Mexico’s example: gun grabs don’t stop violent crime. Leaving firearms in the hands of the tax-snatching government not only doesn’t stop violent crime, it leaves peaceful civilians in danger of more attacks by criminals in and out of the offices of the state.
All people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms. The Mexican government and all the state AGs that have taken its side stand against our Natural Rights, and theirs is a stand... for evil.
The battle lines are drawn, and this case, which likely will see the First Circuit recognize the protection provided by PLCAA, clearly and starkly shows us those sides.
Now, it’s up to us to spread the word, and remember the facts and principles involved.