Mexican Standoff Ends with SCOTUS Siding with Reason
U.S. Supremes slap down Mexico's cynical lawsuit against gun manufacturers
Smith & Wesson Factory, 1909, Springfield, Massachusetts (Public Domain)
So, how often does this happen? I’m talking about the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in a gun case. But, since it did happen, let’s go ahead and add some more “blue moon” elements of the situation.
Justice Elena Kagen wrote the majority opinion with concurrences from Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson and wait for it, Justice Clarence Thomas. Woah, right?
Fortunately, when Congress wrote this law explicitly to protect American gun manufacturers, it left little room for even leftist judges to wiggle. In this case, the Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2005, swatted down Mexico’s claim that U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Baretta, and Glock, “aided and abetted” Mexican criminal cartels because those thugs illegally used those manufacturers’ products to commit crimes.
Smith & Wesson Model: 629, Photo: (Mitch Barrie, CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0)
An overtly corrupt government like Mexico’s (I’m not saying the U.S. hasn’t had its share of corruption under the FJB administration) has some nerve bringing this suit against the U.S.
They’ve allowed their great nation to devolve into a narco-terrorist state (which has included flooding the U.S. with deadly fentanyl), that their good people don’t deserve. Still, Mexico is a democracy, and the people voted for President Claudia Sheinbaum and her administration and socialist President Obrador before her, who have allowed the cartel corruption to continue to some degree.
I’d like to give the liberal justices unreserved kudos, but I can’t help but see how the far-reaching flaws in Mexico’s claim leap of the page. In other words, it was the right decision, but it was also an easy decision.
Let’s say SCOTUS upheld Mexico’s claim. What industries would be next? Ford, Chevy, GMC, Tesla? The cartels also use products made by these manufacturers to commit their crimes. They could also target many other manufacturers like the makers of computer and cellphones whom cartels use.
But we cannot forget a crucial, unique aspect of firearms. Unlike even cars, as John Commerford, executive director of the NRA stated, guns are a “constitutionally protected products.”
Nevertheless, I will give credit where credit is due despite sensing that if the liberal justices could have, they would have ruled against the firearms manufacturers. But good for them for upholding the law as it’s written.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum (Public Domain)
The bottom line, regrettably for leftists, is the gun manufacturers committed no crimes in simply manufacturing their products. Committing a crime, including aiding and abetting, is a specific element of the exceptions to the law’s protections, and none were committed.
According to The Daily Signal, Kagan wrote, “‘Mexico’s complaint … does not plausibly allege such aiding and abetting,’ Kagan added. ‘So, this suit remains subject to PLCAA’s general bar: An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico’s, it is founded on a third party’s criminal use of the company’s product.’”
Yes. This is an important law, as it’s not just Mexico that accuses the gun manufacturers of committing a crime simply by building its firearms. American leftists do this, too. Which brings up the scary part. This unanimous ruling reverses a lower (American) court decision that sided with Mexico and ignored the PLCAA’s protections. So, Americans must ask themselves what the judges on the lower court saw that Justices Kagan, Jackson, and even Sotomayer did not. Or did they create something to see?
It was in my home state, the anti-Second Amendment Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the claim originated. But, happily, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (federal) dismissed the case.
However, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, wrangling a biased bit of political advocacy, found merit in Mexico’s opportunistic and cynical claim. Fortunately, SCOTUS decided to take the case, and it’s a good thing for America that they did.
Letting the lower court’s ruling stand could have decimated the firearms industry, thus also devastated the Second Amendment’s protection of Americans’ rights to self-defense and to life.
The NRA celebrated the decision, stating, “‘The U.S. Supreme Court correctly renounced the tactics Mexico and its American collaborators used to try to extort and impoverish America’s firearms industry,’ Doug Hamlin, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, said in a statement. He said the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is law ‘due to the work of NRA-ILA and NRA members in the early 2000s,’ referring to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.’”
Still, as good as this ruling was, what would have happened if Congress and President Bush hadn’t legislated these protections? The Second Amendment should be enough to guarantee firearms manufacturers the ability to produce their products in perpetuity because, without firearms, Americans could not exercise this unalienable right.
