This month, there is a new case on the docket after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The First Circuit reversed a trial court that dismissed the case, alleging that the American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico. I believe the First Circuit is dead wrong and will be reversed. However, as a torts professor, there is a question of whether the tort element of proximate cause could be materially changed in the case. Torts professors are already lining up to argue that there is a proximate cause under existing doctrines to hold the firearms industry liable. I respectfully disagree.
In the petition, Smith and Wesson and other gun manufacturers challenge the claim, including the argument that their sale of lawful firearms in the United States is the proximate or legal cause for the carnage in Mexico. They note that Mexico has long been riddled with violence and corruption connected to the extensive drug industry in that country.
In my view, the trial court dismissed the case correctly under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That was passed to bar suits against firearms companies based on criminals using these products for criminal or intentionally tortious acts.
However, the First Circuit reversed on the ground that Mexico has made a legally cognizable case that gun manufacturers aided and abetted firearms trafficking that has harmed the Mexican government. The First Circuit is an outlier in this case and ignores both the purpose of the law and basic tort principles of proximate causation.
The Court has accepted the review on two questions:
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
PLCAA was enacted to require dismissal at the inception of lawsuits like this, and other courts have recognized that. The First Circuit’s decision creates a circuit split.
Mexico’s complaint is wildly off base both factually and legally. It suggests that these companies are effectively funneling guns to criminal gangs in Mexico by producing products that they have used in criminal conduct.
The First Circuit adopted an analogy that destroyed the credibility of its decision:
Imagine that a U.S. company sent a mercenary unit of combat troops to attack people in Mexico City. Such an attack would directly cause Mexico itself the expense of paying soldiers to defend the city. Proximate cause would be quite clear. So, too, here, where the defendants are alleged to have armed the attackers for their continuing assaults.
Is that the best these federal judges could come up with? There is a vast difference between the United States sending a combat unit across the border and manufacturers who supply distributors who serve dealers who sell lawful products to consumers. That sounds more like The Merchandisers than The Expendables.
PLCAA specifically bars any “qualified civil liability action” against gun manufacturers and licensees. Any action filed against a federal firearms licensee for damages or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm is expressly addressed in the statute under § 7902 of PLCAA: “A qualified civil liability action … shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.”
Mexico and gun control advocates are focusing on an exception for any manufacturer or seller of a firearm that “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought….”
The First Circuit found that, if proven, a case can be made that Smith & Wesson engaged in “affirmative and deliberate efforts to create and maintain an illegal market for [its] weapons in Mexico” and that, as such, it was “aiding and abetting downstream dealers in violating state and federal laws governing the transfer of firearms.” The level of speculation and conjecture in such a claim is manifestly obvious. Mexico failed to offer anything beyond conclusory claims as to “downstream” users to allege this nexus.
The exception is clearly directed at violations of gun statutes, such as falsifying records or conspiracy to sell to a specific prohibited person. Even then, it must be shown to be the proximate cause of the injury. Mexico does not maintain such a specific showing but treats sales generally as aiding and abetting the violence in that country.
Under standard tort doctrine, criminal or intentionally tortious acts by third parties generally cut off legal causation. However, there is an exception where such conduct is foreseeable. Here is the language from Second Restatement of Torts 448:
“The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.”
The Third Restatement contains the same approach while, again, recognizing that “If the third party’s misconduct is among the risks making the defendant’s conduct negligent, then ordinarily plaintiff’s harm will be within the defendant’s scope of liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical & Emotional Harm (2010)§ 19 cmt. c (“If the third party’s misconduct is among the risks making the defendant’s conduct negligent, then ordinarily plaintiff’s harm will be within the defendant’s scope of liability.”).
However, these exceptions have not been extended to the extent envisioned by Mexico or the First Circuit. For example, in the famous case of Brower v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 91 N.J.L. 190 (1918), a train negligently struck a wagon carrying cider and knocked the driver senseless. The railroad personnel left his goods unprotected and they were stolen. The court ruled:
“The negligence which caused the collision resulted immediately in such a condition of the driver of the wagon that he was no longer able to protect his employer’s property; the natural and probable result of his enforced abandonment of it in the street of a large city was its disappearance; and the wrongdoer cannot escape making reparation for the loss caused by depriving the plaintiff of the protection which the presence of the driver in his right senses would have afforded.”
Simply selling a lawful product falls significantly short of this type of nexus. It would be akin to holding train manufacturers liable for the negligent operation of the train engineer in Brower in aiding and abetting such conduct by third persons.
It is hard to see how the Court could find that these companies were “the” proximate cause of the harm without creating a federal standard for proximate cause that would extend foreseeability beyond any recognition. There are powerful superseding intervening forces in play in Mexico. To embrace this theory that the manufacturers knowingly and foreseeably increased the risk of violence in Mexico would allow torts to effectively gut the industry and existing federal law.
Previously, gun control advocates tried to use product liability and nuisance laws to curtail gun sales. Those cases failed as over-extending tort doctrine to achieve indirectly the courts what could not be achieved directly in the legislatures. Conversely, Congress passed PLCAA to prevent such circumvention of the legislative process.
There are good-faith arguments to be made that the exception for criminal conduct can be maintained where there is sufficient foreseeability and that the First Circuit was merely allowing Mexico to prove its case. However, the complaint is manifestly insufficient for such a claim.
There is no specific evidence that would establish the required showing of knowledge or foreseeability by manufacturers in working with Mexican drug gangs. Mexico has been rife with drug cartels and corruption for decades. Much of this violence has occurred with the cooperation and collusion of Mexican officials, including law enforcement officials.
In my view, the First Circuit should and will be reversed.
Let’s see if I understand this case correctly. Smith and Wesson manufactures a fire arm. Someone in the U.S. buys the firearm and then illegally sells it to someone in Mexico who shoots a Mexican citizen, or the person who legally bought the firearm illegally takes it to Mexico and shoots a Mexican citizen. And Mexico wants to claim the Smith and Wesson is responsible for the shooting.
Does this mean General Motors could be held liable for legally selling a car in Mexico to a Mexican citizen who then uses it to run over a group of Mexican citizens? I know the car is designed for transportation and not to kill people. But by the same token, S&W can argue its firearm is for hunting and for self defense and not to simple kill innocent people.
* No, you don’t understand it at all. The case is about what kinds and types of guns can be MANUFACTURED in the USA and once an inch is taken they’ll take a mile. You don’t get it.
Belgium can open a manufacturing company for guns in the US or a license to produce Belgian guns can be purchased etc. INTERNATIONAL TRADE , MANUFACTURE AND PURCHASE. Only truly stupid people can’t see that.
Allegation that “American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico…”
What about ATF and the Fast & Furious program under which feds delivered weapons to criminal cartels, one of which was used to murder an American Border Patrol officer?
Given that federal criminal conduct I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the feds are somehow behind this litigation.
It’s another dangerous agency that needs to be dissolved.
* Perhaps Anthony Blinken is selling them to the Mexican government and Venezuela as did Hillary and Joe with documents btw and then the Mexican government sells them to the cartels without documentation? Then sues Smith and Wesson to preemptively strike the drug trade and deaths lawsuits in the USA for which they do nothing?
The answer is for mexico to wage war on its own cartels on its side of the border and the US can do the same under new leadership.
Anon,
To use a movie trope, this administration [whoever is actually running it] isn’t ‘the good guys’.
I remember just a few short months ago that Dennis McIntyre bragged to “Jonathan” that he was attending cocktails and canapes fundraising parties for then nominee Joe Biden with Muslims in Michiganistan. I was a little sus that Muslims would take to drinking cocktails in order to convince themselves to support Biden/Harris. Presuming Dennis shows up today to give us his Weekend Edition Jonathan: Breaking News (if the attack on the Second Amendment doesn’t distract him), will Dennis include this breaking news?
<b.Trump accepts endorsements from ‘highly respected’ Muslim religious leaders in Michigan
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/3204772/trump-touts-endorsements-muslim-leaders/
Somewhat more on topic, and more reason to vote for another four years of Border Czar Harris:
Damning Report Reveals Biden,Harris Secretly Ordered Immigration Judges to Grant Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2024/10/26/new-bombshell-report-reveals-bidenharris-granted-amnesty-to-millions-of-illegal-aliens-n2646815
“Biden, Harris Secretly Ordered Immigration Judges to Grant Amnesty”
If federal judges, who are part of a branch of government intended to be independent of both the legislative and executive branches, admit (or can be demonstrated) to have taken orders from the executive branch, in lieu of exercising their own judgment and prerogative, is that not solid grounds for impeachment and removal fr0m the bench?
* maybe lose their licenses…
Immigration judges are not part of the judicial branch, they are employees of the executive branch and are required by the constitution to take orders from the president. Nor can they be impeached.
While Harris has lost nearly every news cycle since the switcheroo, I do not beleive that Trump’s poll gains and Harris’s losses are actually the result of Harris’s campaign gaffe’s. Or Trump’s campaign successes.
Except to the extent that the more Harris attacks Trump the more unhinged the left looks.
I recently learned that John Dewey – Truman opponent was the first republican presidential candidate called “Hitler” by democrats.,
So this is a tactic that democrats have been using since … Hitler.
The shift in polling – particularly the left leaning polls – most of the more reputable polls have barely changed,
is two fold – first biased polls correcting prior to the election so that they are close to correct so that people continue to pay for and trust them.
And 2nd is Trump reluctant voters doing what they always do as the election approachs and committing to the candidate THEY see as the lessor evil – something that was inevitable.
Have the various Harris revelations and gaffes hurt her ? Maybe.
But the big deal as the election approaches is that People know exactly what they are buying with Trump.
Undecideds and independents may not love that – but honestly it would have taken a miracle for them to vote for Harris.
The more relevant factor – and why this election is increasingly likely to turn into a route, is that enthusiasm on the left is dying.
Independents who MIGHT have been persuadable to vote for Harris, are increasingly likely to stay home.
Other Harris voters as it becomes more apparent this election is over, are increasingly likely to stay home.
To Win this election Harris had a near impossible task.
She had to distance herself from the disasterous Biden administration,
She had to do so while holding onto Woke voters that really beleive the Biden administration is a great success.
She had to persuade voters in the center to trust that she would impliment what I will essentialy call democratic Trump lite policies,
with no political history or track record to suggest that these were ever her actual values.
Joe Biden managed pretty much that in 2020 – As a Senator he was almost a blue dog democrat with a strong pro-labor bent.
While as Obama’s VP the far left was able to convince themselves he would be good for them.
Harris had no chance of doing that. Her most tough pro law and order stance was prosecuting single parents for truancy – and she so thoroughly botched that it is now a Trump ad against her. Nor could she recapture the charisma of the Obama campaign.
Anyway, as Much as Trump has dominated the last 90 days of this campaign, I do not think that is determinative.
Undecideds were always going to break for Trump, or not vote at all.
* Harris should get about 30 percent of votes cast. Those are the hate white men block. Nothing else really matters.
I think Democrats called more Republican Presidential candidates Hitler than just Truman. It may have been every Republican Presidential candidate. They also call for their deaths and other despicable things. Remember, Kill Bush, Reagan is stupid, Barry Goldwater will drop a nuclear bomb, etc. There is no end to this type of attack by Democrats on Republican candidates.
Another case in the left’s lawfare campaign is a cert petition from a Hawaii Supreme Court decision letting a city sue energy companies for global environmental effects. Yes, global. And that is the same court that said the Second Amendment doesn’t apply in Hawaii anytime it is inconsistent with the Aloha Spirit.
Sorry, Old Man, but you are wrong about that. The Hawaii Supreme Court never said, suggested, or implied that the Second Amendment is any less effective in Hawaii than anywhere else in the USA. The idea that it did was promulgated by right-wing bloggers who were either reckless, illiterate, or deliberately lying. Read the decision for yourself and you will see that it is so.
The second amendment applies in Hawaii, and the state’s courts reluctantly accept that this is so, because they have no choice. If pushed to enforce it they will, though they’d rather find an excuse not to. In the case in front of them they had an excuse, because the plaintiff had never applied for a license, so he couldn’t claim he was denied one. So they didn’t have to rule on whether the license laws are valid.
Clearly, in the end it will be a court decision on the legitimacy of the lawsuit. It’s the background that’s more interesting regarding the Mexican government’s naked assault on the Second Amendment while they do little to nothing to enforce their own laws that should be addressing their violence problem. This is more about politics than Mexico posturing it’s about reducing crime. And possibly not factoring in a possible President Trump v2.0.
America has extremely onerous laws detailing the requirements to export firearms, either singly by individuals or in numbers by businesses. The bureaucracy and cost of export permits makes exporting most firearms far more expensive than the value of the firearm unless exported in large numbers from American businesses to Mexican businesses or their government.
On their side of the border Mexico makes it equally difficult to legally import firearms, (even temporarily by hunters wishing to hunt desert bighorn, quail, etc,) and severely limits legal ownership of firearms by its citizens. Mexican drug cartels and other violent criminals pretty much laugh in the face of the Mexican government over such prohibitions. Despite Mexico’s severe firearms laws, long prison sentences simply for being found in possession of an illegal firearm just don’t happen.
We can see why Mexico has decided not to sue itself for failing to enforce their firearms laws as they’ve failed to enforce their drug and illegal alien laws. Like their fellow socialist/Marxist Democrat brothers from the same Marx mother, there are two standards of law for the Mexican government, and that double standard includes Mexico being free of any liability for negligently or willingly refusing to enforce their gun laws.
However, given that the US government has much, MUCH deeper pockets for a lawsuit brought by Mexico to dip into, why aren’t they at least also suing the United States at the same time? Why not sue the Biden/Harris administration for negligently allowing the trafficking of firearms across the Border Czar’s wide open border? Border Patrol and DHS enforce movement of people and goods both ways, many forgot that.
So we should believe that federal money from American taxpayers has no appeal to Mexico, and that’s why they don’t sue the Biden/Harris administration as well? Obviously not.
Are they afraid that if they were to be successful dipping into the American taxpayers’ pockets instead of firearms manufacturers, there would be bipartisan outrage and demands that the US government retaliate and target Mexico?
But a win by Mexico against firearms manufacturers and the Second Amendment would be cheered and endorsed by half the voters in America would work for Mexico? The half of Americans who are at least tolerant of, if not defending the flow of Illegal Aliens from Mexico.
Obama/Biden/Harris/DNC have regularly proposed gun bans and confiscations to show they’re doing something about what they like to call ‘gun violence’ while at the same time not prosecuting felons arrested in possession of firearms. This lawsuit could similarly be Mexico also attempting to convince their citizens that they’re also” doing something” about gun violence while they do little with their existing laws, just like Democrats. With hopefully a big check from America at the end – without needing Illegal Aliens to send them that money in dribs and drabs each month.
It’s no secret to Mexico that Obama and Biden secretly engineered gun smuggling during their time in office in hopes it would provide justification for gun bans and confiscation. Obama’s Attorney General was referred for criminal prosecution over that (to nobody’s amazement, his partner Obama declined to prosecute him for those gun crimes)
As it’s no secret to Mexico that Biden and Border Czar Harris have regularly spoken of their wish to attack American gun manufacturing and firearms ownership through widespread gun bans and confiscation as well.
Mexico knows Democrat administrations and politicians slavering to cripple and harm American gun manufacturing that makes firearms accessible to ordinary Americans (who don’t get government close protection details as these politicians do) can almost assuredly be expected to help Mexico as much as possible be successful with this lawsuit.
I do wonder if Mexico included in their calculus the thought of how a President Trump might respond to their lawsuit if he were to be elected again in a few days? I doubt Mexican courts will be as welcoming of American lawsuits against Mexican industries and groups as American courts are of Mexico doing that; I doubt they’re worried about that.
But there are many actions in response that Trump can enact punitively against Mexico that their courts have no say in. One example would be putting an end to the hundreds of millions of untaxed funds Illegal Aliens here from Mexico send home to be spent in the Mexican economy. And that’s just for starters – then there’s all the foreign aid that America gives Mexico for development of their industries. That should continue while they’re attacking American industries?
Lawfare either by political parties or by countries loses a lot of it’s appeal when the scenario changes and it’s their blood on the floor from lawfare, not their intended victims’.
“Screaming Lil Bow Wow” is the only commenter here who claims the valor of the Airborne soldier, the 101st, 82nd, 173rd Brigade etc.
Why won’t he simply answer the question: What was his Airborne MOS?
Do you have an argument ?
I do not care of OAD is “actually Hitler” – he has made an argument.
Do you have anything that addresses that actual argument ?
So no MOS just stolen valor?
No valor just a POS ^^^^
“…the Governor misspoke.”
“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” Tim Walz.
“Vice President Harris’ presidential campaign admitted Friday that her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz ‘misspoke’ about his past military service as a growing chorus of critics accuse him of ‘stolen valor.’”
Can one steal valor by “misspeaking” if one is in the “Airborne?”
Can one steal valor by “misspeaking” if one is in the “Airborne?”
Can one speak of such things if one’s naval career abruptly ended due to multiple investigations regarding soliciting sex from underage boys in the areas around naval bases here in America?
“Screaming Lil Bow Wow” is the only commenter here who claims the valor of the Airborne soldier, the 101st, 82nd, 173rd Brigade etc.
Whining vicious Navy turd tamper, angry gun bunny attempting to support your Command Sergeant Major Tampon Tim: you don’t cite YOUR history while making your unspecified insinuations.
Got anything relevant to what I posted today? How about anything relevant to what I posted yesterday? How about the day before that? Or the day before that?
How many times do I have to tell you that getting mad at me because you think I’m the jumper that paid your mother for a $5 blow job that resulted in becoming your unknown father isn’t going to help you in the slightest.
It was a navy guy, gun bunny, navy. Not a jumper.
Keep making the same post, you’ll get the same answer every time.
You are truly an imbecile if you think this fvcktard was in the Navy. Get a grip and stop stealing valor, old dog.
Waters
You are truly an imbecile if you think this fvcktard was in the Navy. Get a grip and stop stealing valor, old dog. Waters
And you’re why other services call the navy “undisciplined civilians who love their buddy’s bums better than they love their country”. Feel better now that we’ve exchanged insults?
None of Professor Turley’s topics in DAYS/WEEKS has had any connection to the military. None of my posts during that time has made ANY reference to military service – don’t need that to point out what complete culls and serial pathological liars Harris/Walz are.
Also not needed to point out how equally contemptible fascist Soviet Democrats and their cock holster Never Trumpers who post here in their hopes of getting Harris elected instead of Trump are.
You’re an imbecile as well as a fvcktard who may not have been in the Navy if you don’t notice any of that, as well as not noticing no references to military service in my posts.
But – here you are, tag teaming with a mewling gun bunny still suffering a terminal Midol Moment because he got laughed at one day months ago. Is he your Bachi Boy, Waters? Is that what gets you to post this? Or instead, is it your hatred of “Orange Trump” and me regularly being defending him against these attacks?
Last time you showed up pimping to help him out with his daily mewling was about a week ago. You added in that post you’re disgusted and outraged at my posts in defense of Orange Trump. Decided to drop that and try without that included?
If you have some specific allegations to make on anything I post, you and your little gun bunny should go find a Marine willing to rent him or you a set of balls and six inches spine and make them that day or at least that week, you feckless waste of skin and rations.
Meanwhile, Professor Turley sets the topics every day. Challenge yourself for at least one time in your life: take the test of seeing whether you can comment on the topics of the day – or at least on the actual contents of my posts regarding those topics.
Feel free to put your magnificent navy intellect on public display rebutting any of my posts as you choose. I will mock you and the gun bunny every time you post “do you still beat your wife?” style insinuations that are a clone of the Harris/Walz insinuations that Trump will make elective birth control abortions illegal and be a dictator.
And at least be patriotic enough to vote for Trump/Vance, NOT Harris/Walz you pathetic sniveling oxygen thief.
Only a commie Democrat or submissive Never Trumper would vote for Harris instead of Trump. I think you’re one of them, Waters.
Have we exchanged enough insults to satisfy you for another week or so?
Airborne
You are deluded. I’ve never said a word about what you have to say about Trump. I am a died in the wool conservative populist. Are you like 90 years old? Because thats what you sound like.
“Get off my lawn!!”
It’s not surprising that you’re confused. You do that a lot. For months you kept confusing George the kluxxer with George-svelaz the lefty idiot.
We didnt exchange insults, you POS. And I dont tag team, and certainly not with the burger flipper who keeps questioning your service. You repeatedly insulted every sailor who ever served with your fantasies about ostensibly some tender moments you shared in a foxhole. I called you out for that and for posting your nonsense as anonymous, when you have often called other’s cowards for the same. That makes you chicken shlt and a hypocrite.
Politically, there is no daylight between us, you dunce. You are very confused.
Thinking that I ever have or ever would vote for a democrat just shows your dementia, old man. Good news, Rivastigmine is available in a time released patch now. This could help with your late day episodes.
Waters
“None of my posts during that time has made ANY reference to military service – “
You mean none of the posts you signed your name too, right, chicken shlt?
You (as anonymous) REPEATEDLY insinuated that the moron questioning your service was Navy (with ZERO basis) and ran your ignorant mouth about what you think of sailors.
REAL service members with a triple digit IQ dont denigrate the other services, because they understand the sacrifices we all made. Your diarrhea of the mouth suggests you never really served, and are only familiar with some 1950’s caricature of what a Spec4Ever is.
Waters, Capt, USN, Ret.
And by the way, dementia bunny, EVERY post you make has a reference to military service (at least those that you arent too chicken shlt to put your name on) because of your screen name. Duh.
Waters
Nope, no military reference here: Airborne Dog (i.e. airborne army).
Pure stolen valor.
What was your MOS?
Hey burger flipper, why don’t you STFU?
What have you ever served, besides fries at Wendy’s?
Waters
Obviuously it was 111.17
You’d know this if you had ever served anything besides yourself.
* Everyone go out and buy a Smith n Wesson. That’ll fund the lawsuit expenses.
Countersuit
Mexican Firearms have been killing Americans in the U.S. for decades. Homicide Rates in South Western States reflect the influx (i.e.: Albuquerque, Colorado Spring, Los Vegas, Tucson, San Antonio, …). Mexican Firearm Manufactures have been providing the weapons to the Gangs & Cartels of Mexico as well. So much so that the two are synonyms. The Manufactures are a subsidiary of the Cartels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Firearms_of_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Semi-automatic_pistols_of_Mexico
https://ammoterra.com/firearms-slash-small-armsmade-in-mexico-manufacturer
Re: Gangs & Cartels of Mexico
Sinaloa Cartel
The most dominant Mexican drug cartel, involved in the distribution of many drugs, including cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. The cartel has operations in the United States, Latin America, and the Philippines.
Los Zetas
Formerly part of the Gulf Cartel, but is now independent.
La Familia Michoacana
Formerly a branch of the Gulf Cartel, but is now independent.
Jalisco New Generation Cartel
Considered one of the biggest threats to the US by the DEA.
Juárez Cartel
Considered one of the biggest threats to the US by the DEA.
Gulf Cartel
The oldest Mexican criminal syndicate, which began as a Prohibition-era bootlegging gang.
Tijuana Cartel
Spawned from the Guadalajara Cartel.
Oaxaca Cartel
Was a branch of the Tijuana Cartel.
Los Mazatlecos
Formed in the coastal city of Mazatlán, Sinaloa.
18th Street Gang
Also known as Mara 18, this transnational criminal organization started as a street gang in Los Angeles.
MS-13
Also known as Mara Salvatrucha, this international criminal gang originated in Los Angeles in the 1980s.
Then all the manufacturers of the vehicles (land, sea, and air) that smuggle drugs into the country should be sued. They’re obviously responsible for all the drugs coming across the border.
Mr. Turley, I believe your legal assessment of the lawsuit is correct, and the decision of the First Circuit will be overturned (in spite of the thinly veiled agenda to weaken the firearms industry). I believe a deeper dive into the historical culture of Mexico is warranted–a culture best defined by two vastly separate classes of people. The minority are the politically corrupt, who stay in power with unkept promises of social reform, long supported by the under-handed policies of Washington, D.C. The majority, a non-indulgent working class, where struggles are a way of life. In recent years, another minority class has gained prominence, the professional criminal class. The wealth of power and influence amassed by these ruthless “Lords” of the drug cartels are a direct challenge to the politically corrupt hierarchy of governors’. There is no honor amongst the two criminal elements, and no limit to the methods of violence in their quest for power and control of the masses. The aforementioned lawsuit is a desperate attempt to lay blame where none truly exists, and to deflect the true nature of two competing criminal elements. As such, the root cause of violence cannot be addressed by tort law.
Now *that* is chutzpah. Makes me think their government, like ours to a degree, is peopled by many very ignorant younger people that think history started when they personally turned 18, and the rest are just super corrupt.
Heaven forbid they blame their own hilariously and infamously corrupt governments (guess it’s plural if one goes back far enough with Mexico) for their decades-spanning and very much open malfeasance. 🙄 Then again, Mexico basically elected their own form of Trudeau or modern labour, so . . . 🤷🏽♂️ And actually, that a country as wrecked as Mexico picked that flavor of politics is telling in itself.
This is absurd, on every level. Under these leftist regimes people will be fleeing these places like never before, and that’s saying something.
Oh, and PS – don’t tell me this isn’t ultimately a globalist cabal when not even just the narrative, but the lawfare is virtually identical. It *really* pisses said people off we have a 1A and 2A, and they will not stop attacking until they have been marginalized again by saner society.
Then isn’t the same true for Mexican drug cartels and the imported fentanyl? Mexicos government continues to fail at controlling drug cartels thereby knowingly allowing the importation of drugs and criminals to invade our borders.
This sort of flawed decision occurs when the ordinary sequence is reversed, and the court begins with the desired ruling and then writes backwards trying to justify it.
Holding a particular lobby responsible for the damage caused by their product is probably the only way to address the sort of political corruption that has overridden the Constitution on a regular basis. You know all about this Jon, as you’ve greatly profited off of this sort of corruption.
This is the kryptonite for the shoddy practices of the fossil fuel, gun and pharmaceutical industries.
Oh…, and yes, Allan puke Meyer and turd magat tommy are groaning at the cretin circle jerk as we speak.
You know all about this Jon, as you’ve greatly profited off of this sort of corruption. This is the kryptonite for the shoddy practices of the fossil fuel, gun and pharmaceutical industries.
Commie fascists just have to commie. The more absurd the better.
Glad to see you can still type with one hand while fisting yourself with the other.
Here, Elvis fantasizes about xome dudes sexual acts again. He cant help himself.
“Glad to see you can still type with one hand while fisting yourself with the other.”
Democrats’ are notorious for doing that during discussions. Their legal analysts like Jeffrey Toobin prefer to do it on video instead, rather than like here where the audience is spared seeing anything other than what they post. Eye bleach still required – but not double doses.
Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin returns to CNN just month after publicly masturbating during a Zoom discussion
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeffrey-toobin-returns-cnn-months-132025272.html
The renowned legal journalist was fired from his staff writer position at The New Yorker after a legendary 20-year career with the magazine. The Zoom call during which Toobin’s masturbation took place was with his New Yorker colleagues.
In the Thursday interview, Toobin apologized to his wife and family and said, “I am sorry to my former colleagues at The New Yorker. I’m sorry to my current — fortunately still — colleagues at CNN. And I’m sorry to the people who read my work and who watched me on CNN who thought I was a better person than this.
Toobin had no credibility to lose after decades serving as a provider of dog whistles for CNN as well as The New Yorker.
The Democrat Toobers who show up every day to lay the hate on Turley as they do Trump would be throwing celebratory parties if it were Turley who was fisting himself during a discussion instead of Toobin.
Jeffrey Toobin is Elvis Bugs nephew.
Turley has cited the foundations of tort law – which are centuries old. While it is possible that we got this aspect of torts wrong long ago,
That is NOT a decision we should make lightly or willy nilly to support Your desired political outcome.
You say we have al kinds of problems with political corruption that have overridden the constitution, while you have assumed ideologically hat is true rather than proven any of your assertions or that they have a causal connection, Even that is insufficient.
We have a government and political system that works – arguably better than anywhere else in the world.
The core to conservatism is the trivially simple logical premise that you do not break something that is working and has done so for centuries to acheive goals that are likely illusory while causing unforseable damage.
Put simply you have to do MORE than prove what exists is flawed – that is a give, in order to replace or alter it, you have to PROVE that the changes you seek to make WILL both solve whatever you think is the problem, and not have significant unforseable consequences.
Every lawful product can be used for lawless or harmful purposes. The first circuits logic would apply to things other than guns and make every manufacturer of anything liable for any 3rd party harm done using their product.
Some products are much more dangerous than others, abusing their markets just like you abuse the concept of brevity in your writing, johnnie.
Here Elvis jumps in again with another HPD induced turd. He can’t help himself.
Guns are no more dangerous than cars, pharmaceuticals, or computers. All of these can be used to commit crimes and/or to harm people, and in no case can a manufacturer or seller be held liable for the criminal use to which someone puts their product.
Like computers, but unlike cars or drugs, guns are not only vital products, they’re also constitutionally protected, so any government action that makes them less accessible is not only stupid but also illegal.
This lawsuit is unconstitutional because its purpose is to have the courts impose what Congress can’t. The lawyers who have conspired with the Mexican government to bring it ought to be imprisoned. So should the judges who have allowed it to proceed; they have violated their oaths of office and betrayed the constitution.
Here, poor Elvis admits again that he is the useless commenter who uses others screen names and makes pointless responses to his own nonsense. He tried denying it for awhile but now just doesnt care, his ARBD, HPD, and TDS has so overtaken him.
Lobbies don’t make products, imbecile.
Speak a little louder, Lawn Boy. Jon can’t hear you.
Lobbying is explicitly protected by the constitution, and holding a lobby liable for supporting a bill you don’t like would be just as illegal as holding a congressman liable for voting for it.
“Judicial appointments matter”
The way such things are going, one of Twain’s quotation may soon need to be augmented: “In the first place, God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards. FINALLY, HAVING PERFECTED THE ART, HE BEGAN MAKING JUDGES”…
What a surprise. Obama and Biden appointees. Who could have guessed that?
I would suggest the Mexico pay it’s cops more, Provide better security for it’s judges and not elect Politicians like AMLO who are mouth pieces for the various Drug Cartals as is his protege who was just elected to succeed him. Mexico is verging on the status of a failed state. Until Mexico gets it’s own house in order it is just throwing away it’s resources in an attempt to shift the blame away from it’ s corrupt and criminal governmental system and cartels run state.
“Alas poor Mexico, so far from god, so close to the United States”. Just does not ring quite as well as it once did.
The drug cartels have completely captured the Mexican political system, in the same way that the international Marxist cartels intend to capture ours. Assuming that those aren’t two faces of the very same creature.
Wholeheartedly agree. NEVER trust a government that distrusts the governed!! Firearm laws in Mexico have disarmed the masses, whereby only the criminal elements (government AND cartels) are armed.
What is next? Holding automobile companies responsible for carjackings? Beer companies for drunk drivers? Fast food companies for obesity?
Thinking back on it, IIRC there was a woman who did try to sue McDonalds for making her fat.
Stay tuned Upstate. Stay tuned. Maybe parents will start sue universities for awarding their children worthless degrees ? Might work ?
Don’t forget to sue the knife and fork manufacturers, the big gulp cup manufacturers, the ad agencies that make those provocative ads…etc. etc. etc. Why not just hold everyone else responsible for your own life while you’re at it.
If I understand, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit, i.e., did not allow the Plaintiffs to present evidence to a jury. It is questionable whether Congress can pass a statute intruding on due process as PLCAA seems to. That is not to say that a District judge cannot dismiss a frivolous or weak lawsuit — the Judge can absolutely do so after looking over the Plaintiff’s filing. This lawsuit is an example of an unfounded claim, based on absence of proximate causation.
But, can Congress reach over and tell the Judiciary a Judge MUST dismiss? That strips the Judge of ability to judge and a Jury to hear evidence and be decider-of-facts. That could very well be ruled as a separation of powers overreach.
The Courts are able to dismiss unfounded lawsuits on their own without Congress telling them when to do it. They do it every day.
The PLCAA does not change Tort law or standards, it merely requires third party liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers to be dismissed near the start of the case unless the plantif can provide credible evidence of complicity.
The cases would not get to a jury regardless, but they might have gotten to discovery before.
And no – we do not allow every claim any plaintif makes to go before a jury no matter how absurd.
No one has the right to use the legal system to harrass their enemies, and we do not require that meritless cases must go before juries before we dismiss them.
But, can Congress reach over and tell the Judiciary a Judge MUST dismiss?
pbinca has been triggered. It’s well known that California’s Democrat communists in particular have a visceral hatred of the PLCAA preventing them from using frivolous lawsuits in their anti-civil rights objective to make the Second Amendment a dead letter. Hatred of the PLCAA is as much a rite of passage for Democrats the same as is celebrating elective birth control abortions.
pbinca’s line of supposed logic and reasoning is about as sophomoric as it can get. The reality is there are reams of laws passed by Congress that also tell judges what they must ALLOW to proceed, not just what they must dismiss.
The ACLU takes up most of it’s time using those laws passed by Congress, arguing to judges what they MUST allow – like drag queens dressed like cheap whores reading kiddy porn like ‘Gender Queer’ to children who still believe in Santa Clause.
No Democrat ever lived who complains about Congress providing the ACLU with legislation that allows them to appear in court telling judges they must allow Drag Whore Story Hour, and school boards don’t have the jurisdiction to prevent that.
pbinca is only obsessed with laws that tell individuals/groups/government that they CAN’T bring frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry. No other industry in America i.e. the car industry has ever needed the protection from coordinated frivolous lawsuits than the firearms industry. Just as no president before Trump was ever under lawfare attack that needed SCOTUS to articulate what actions by a president have immunity and qualified immunity versus acts for which they have liability.
If she/her/they pbinca’s guise of fair minded commentator were clothing, she/her/they would be standing naked in front of everybody.
The Courts are able to dismiss unfounded lawsuits on their own without Congress telling them when to do it. They do it every day.
They are indeed able to do so. The problem was that in the case of lawsuits against gun manufacturers too many judges were refusing their duty to do so.
Congress made a finding of fact that ALL such lawsuits are inherently frivolous, and in every other industry such suits are routinely dismissed on sight, so that no competent lawyer bothers to file them in the first place. And yet in this one industry that was not the case, because corrupt judges were implicitly conspiring with corrupt lawyers to allow these suits to proceed, not in the expectation of winning them but solely for the purpose of costing the defendants millions of dollars which they don’t have, and driving them into bankruptcy or into surrendering to blackmail.
And so it had every constitutional right to correct that problem by forcing judges to dismiss such suits as soon as their inherently frivolous nature becomes apparent, i.e. as soon as it becomes clear that they are based on this absurd theory of vicarious liability. Unfortunately too many judges have become so bold as to ignore the law and allow the suits to proceed anyway; Congress should amend the law to make such judges personally liable for the defendants’ legal expenses. (Judicial immunity is nowhere in the constitution; judges invented it for their own benefit, and Congress is not bound to respect it.)
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
More bad news for Boeing. They continued to manufacture killer planes despite knowing that their planes were used to crash into buildings and kill people.
Exactly. I was going to mention that. Also, what about pharmaceutical companies that manufacture opioids, knowing that some will be diverted to illicit sales, be abused and cause death by overdose. Are those companies liable for each and every wrongful death under this doctrine? Baseball bats and crowbars are not uncommonly used in assaults and other crimes of aggression. To my IANAL mind, the entire doctrine, as cited by Prof. Turley, is suspect as to its reasonableness and its contribution to just outcomes.
More bad news for Boeing. They continued to manufacture killer planes despite knowing that their planes were used to crash into buildings and kill people.
Been manufacturing aircraft that kill people ever since they manufactured the B-17 in WWII. B-29, B-52, the F-15, F-18, F-22, etc. Oh… and their Space Shuttle has a high incidence of blowing up and killing everybody aboard.
Oh… and their Space Shuttle has a high incidence of blowing up and killing everybody aboard.’
Paging the heirs of Christa McAuliffe…
Match makers (as opposed to matchmakers) and gasoline companies know perfectly well that some of their products are purchased and used by arsonists.
Car manufacturers of course know that their products are occasionally used for terrorist attacks and mass murders, just as guns are, but they also know that their products are often used for other crimes such as robberies and drunk driving.
Computer manufacturers know that many of their products are used in a broad range of crimes, from child pornography through all kinds of fraud, harassment, and even criminal defamation.
Condom makers know their products are used by rapists to avoid leaving DNA.
Can we expect the Department of Justice and Eric Holder to be named as co-defendants for their role in sending guns to Mexico under ‘Operation Fast & Furious’?
“Can we expect the Department of Justice and Eric Holder to be named as co-defendants for their role in sending guns to Mexico under ‘Operation Fast & Furious’?”
How about Border Czar Harris as a co-defendant for ensuring the southern border was NOT secured?
Are there court cases holding mexico liable for all the crimes committed by those crossing its border to invade the US?
And NGO’s which facilitate illegal crossings. And the Democrat donors who fund them. Sue ’em all.
And public U.S. officials whose malfeasance includes catch and release. And Sanctuary Cities which defy and inhibit federal law enforcement. They should have criminal liabilities as well.
Crime was declining in this country until Democrats got a hold of the border and our city streets. The cartels always find guns and drugs. Mexico’s draconian gun laws proves its not a legal problem. It’s a cultural problem, both within Mexico and within our urban areas.
Australia has very little gun crime, and yet they keep tightening gun laws to drive out private gun ownership. The hatred directed toward gun owners is not about crime statistics. It’s about snooty liberals who love to mind everybody’s business (unless it’s criminal act; then they pretend it’s not a problem.)
Yes, let some enterprising young law firm tie up all the court systems with endless suits againt all thi=ose who are enabling thsi planned invasion of our sovereign nation.
Guessing a 6-3 decision reversing the 1st Circuit and remanding the case for actions consistent with the Court’s findings.
What was the First Circuit thinking? Well, except for those with Senior status, a very quick glance shows that most, if not all, are Biden and Obama appointees.
Judicial appointments matter
Could be 7-2. Kagan is more intelligent than Sotomayor and Jackson combined.
“Kagan is more intelligent than Sotomayor and Jackson combined.”
Given your reference to the self styled Wise Latina Racist (and misandrist) Associate Justice Sonya Sotomayor… shouldn’t we be hearing outrage towards her from the same resident Anonymous Democrats and their group Fix The Court as we do their claims Thomas and Alito have committed ethical violations by accepting unsolicited gifts?
No concerns about Sotomayor, just as they similarly had no problem with Ruth Bader Ginsberg accepting a $1 million dollar gift from a billionaire Democrat donor’s foundation?
‘Nonpartisan’ Supreme Court watchdog omitted Sonia Sotomayor’s European travel for speaking engagements from website
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3203207/nonpartisan-supreme-court-watchdog-omitted-sonia-sotomayor-travel/
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s $1 Million Prize From Democrat Donor Nicolas Berggruen
https://freebeacon.com/courts/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-mysterious-1-million-prize/