Austin Knudsen
Montana AG Austin Knudsen. Courtesy NSSF
Previous Post
Next Post

We reported last week how both the National Rifle Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of lower court decisions regarding Mexico’s attempts to impose its gun-control preferences on Americans.

Now, the top law enforcement officers from more than half of the states in the nation are petitioning the high court to take up the matter.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, the coalition of 27 state AGs is petitioning SCOTUS to correct a lower court’s ruling in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico to keep other nations from using the American court system to limit the rights of American citizens.

“American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals, as established by the commonsense federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” AG Knudsen said in a release announcing the action. “Mexico’s bad policies created the country’s gun violence problem. Rather than take responsibility, Mexico and anti-gun activists are trying to blame and bankrupt American companies that follow the law. The appeals court erred in their decision, and the Supreme Court needs to correct it.”

The brief filed by the AGs stated: “Congress recognized the public’s right to keep and bear arms was all-but-meaningless if firearms manufacturers were put out of business, and further recognized the importance of the firearms industry to the military and law enforcement. So, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005… You might think that would be the end of it. But the activists are at it again, trying to cram the same creative legal theories with even more tenuous chains of causation into PLCAA’s narrow exceptions, admittedly attempting to achieve through litigation what Congress rejected.”

The brief continued with the AGs pointing out the error in reasoning of both the Mexican government and the lower court’s ruling.

“Here, the activists even had Mexico sue American gun manufacturers for crime problems resulting from Mexico’s policy choices,” the brief stated. “The First Circuit erred by reversing the usual rule of statutory construction by broadly construing an exception to a general provision. The upshot? The First Circuit effectively neutered the general provision. Under the First Circuit’s approach, the very cases PLCAA was intended to address now fall within one of its exceptions.”

In the end, the AGs are asking SCOTUS not only to take up the case, but in doing so to reverse the lower court’s errant ruling.

“This Court should review this case to correct the First Circuit’s wayward approach and to prevent it from proliferating as other circuits follow,” the brief further stated. “A foreign sovereign’s use of American courts to effectively limit the rights of American citizens is yet another reason to review this case.”

Other states whose AGs signed the brief included Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming and Arizona.

Previous Post
Next Post

25 COMMENTS

  1. Gun Control the centuries old diabolical agenda that caters to murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, perverts, lynchmobs, tyrants and deranged drama queens…

  2. There are reports the Mexican cartels operate in all our states. Then there are reports the Mexican cartels heavily sway Mexican govt. politics. Would it be a far reach to say this lawfare benefits the the Mexican cartels?

    • Yes, sue them in our courts. I’m not a lawyer but I’d imagine there are multiple avenues to take.

      1 Have the gun manufacturers sue them.
      2 Employees of the manufacturers can as well.
      3 We also sue Mexico in a class action (or something else) as individual Americans for damages as well.
      4 Then every city, county, and state can individually sue them.

      Based on their arguments as well as impacting our markets, legal system and laws, and individual rights there are multiple possible legal arguments for every single group listed as well as others.

      Just keep piling up the cases against them. If they want to be represented in our court system they should also be prepared to defend themselves in the same venues. Make it ridiculous and assine.

  3. It bears repeating: allowing standing in US courts to entities not bound by the results is inherently unfair to those that are so bound, and degrades both the integrity of the court, and American sovereignty.

    If Mexico sues me, and wins, I have to pay. If I win, Mexico has a giggle-fit and sues me again.

    • There is a fair shot of cert being granted here as, unlike a slew of other petitions recently denied, there is an actual decision on the merits after the Court of Appeal reversed a dismissal by the trial court. Further, whether the claim falls within the scope of the PLCAA or an exception to it is a question of law, not a question of fact, based on the allegations of the complaint. The essence of the Court of Appeal ruling is that the allegations that the manufacturers “knowingly violated state and federal laws” thus resulting in the illegal import of guns into Mexico was a valid except to PLCAA immunity. It does not matter to Plaintiff (and its attorneys) that the manufacturers do not engage in direct retail sales, that the retail sales were presumably illegal straw sales, and that unknown third persons illegally smuggled guns into Mexico, and that additional third persons used those smuggled guns to commit various and sundry crimes.

  4. If we are subject to Mexico’s government wishes then turnabout should be fair play and it should be OK to carpet bomb cartel facilities without warning.

  5. Seems logical that if guns are killing people and their manufactures are responsible, then automobile manufactures should be held responsible for people killed in their vehicles, after all more people die in car wrecks than in shootings. If we banned automobiles we would save lives. My question is where do we stop this insanity?

    • Good point. A lot of Fords and Chevys are made in Mexico, so we ought to be able to sue the crap out those Mexican bastards.

    • Something I said many times before is if the PLCAA was repealed it would set a precedent allowing auto makers, brewers, distillers, and any other entity providing a good or service to be sued for the actions of non-involved third parties.

      • IMO, that is the plan. Hence certain moves made by credit card providers, who will leverage the need to avoid liability.

        We will be treated to scenarios such as: man steals gun, commits crime. Victim sues credit card folks who enabled the purchase of the gun by the person it was stolen from, who will also be sued for “allowing” it to be stolen. Also named – various manufacturers and merchants, to include the maker of the TV the perp watched when young…

        Or a dui victim suing the card provider the perp used to buy his gas.

        All mighty tempting to a commie and/or climate kamikaze.

    • Why behind the courthouse? If the purpose is to create an example, then it should be done publicly, in front of the courthouse!

  6. NorteAmerica gets a lot of farm products along with much more from Mexico.
    The U.S. is trying to dissolve(so we are told) some of the power China has by importing products from Mexico.
    The Mex gov has some leverage with that.
    Shits fixin to hit the fan.
    Let’s just hope our military might is all its cracked up to be.
    I’m skeptical however.

  7. It appears that some of the imports from Mexico are military-aged Chinese males, among other foreigners intent on doing us harm. And you are correct, the Mexican government has some leverage with that. There’s a whole lot that the Mexican government COULD be doing to reduce or minimize the problems we’re seeing along the US / Mexican border.

    But without action by the US government — militarily or otherwise — there’s no incentive for the Mexican government to act. Until OUR leaders act with resolve — which the current administration / uniparty coalition does not possess — the situation will continue to degrade until even the remnants of our military (degraded by “woke” policies) cannot be relied upon to defend us, our principles, our liberties, and our inalienable rights!

    • I believe they are called burro’s down south.
      .
      Mexico can kiss my burro. ????
      Whaaaaat,,,, most Mezkins are catholic, if you want someone to kiss your burro you’ll have to look to the Mohammed’s.

  8. Here’s a question: How does a foreign country have any standing in a United States court when trying to abridge our rights? It should have been thrown out within the first hour, and I’m being generous.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here