https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-14/
>You can even look at this as an effort by the Mexican Government to disarm Americans.
<Second Amendment Case - Smith & Wesson Brands vs. Mexico:
Background: Mexico has filed a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other major U.S. gun manufacturers, alleging they should be held liable for injuries caused by illegal use of their firearms in Mexico.
<Arguments:
Mexico argues that these manufacturers knew their products would be used in criminal activities in Mexico.
Bill Olson counters that this liability would effectively nullify the Second Amendment by potentially bankrupting gun manufacturers, thereby stopping gun production.
The case hinges on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which shields gun manufacturers from such lawsuits unless they had direct knowledge of the illegal use by the buyer.
<Implications:
If Mexico's lawsuit were successful, it could set a precedent that would make gun manufacturing unviable, severely impacting Second Amendment rights.
The remoteness of the manufacturer from the illegal use of the product is emphasized as a reason why such liability should not apply.
<Jurisdictional and Policy Concerns:
The discussion touches on thejurisdictional absurdity of Mexico attempting to influence U.S. policy through litigation, suggesting it's an overreach into U.S. constitutional rights. Bill Olson criticizes Mexico's own stringent gun laws, suggesting that these laws might contribute more to the violence by leaving citizens defenseless against cartels.
<Operation Fast and Furious Mention:
Bill Olson references this U.S. government operation where guns were allowed to be sold to suspected smugglers to track them to Mexican drug cartels, which backfired, leading to unintended consequences including deaths. This is used to highlight government culpability rather than manufacturer liability.
<Conclusion:
The conversation ends with a hope that the Supreme Court will reinforce the PLCAA and dismiss the lawsuit, emphasizing that such cases should not proceed past initial motions to dismiss due to their lack of legal merit.
Post last edited at
