PLCAA Lawsuit

Last week, SCOPE wrote about a movie about a law suit against gun manufacturers.  That

E mail’s purpose was to point out the propaganda value of movies to the anti-gun left.  Now, there is news about an actual law suit against gun manufacturers.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a federal law that shields gun makers from frivolous lawsuits when their products are used criminally.  Under PLCAA, if the manufacturer obeyed the laws as to selling the guns and did not falsely advertise, they generally can’t be held liable if the product is used illegally.  However, PLCAA does have exceptions. 

Mexico (the country) filed a lawsuit against major gun manufacturers arguing that gun manufacturers are violating federal law by “aiding and abetting” straw purchasers and criminal gun dealers. The Mexican government claims that these companies “knowingly” sell firearms that end up in cartel hands through straw purchases because American gun makers sell to retailers near the border and some criminals buy those guns illegally and smuggle them to Mexican drug cartels.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently heard oral arguments in Mexico v. Smith & Wesson. A SCOTUS decision will open - or close - the door on future lawsuits against the firearms industry

SOTUS seemed dubious. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden-appointed, died-in-the-wool liberal, who never lets the law stand in the way of her opinion seemed skeptical.

As with many 2nd Amendment cases, there is more here than just winning.  We have to ‘beat the point spread.’   Remember the “Heller” decision which validated gun rights in Washington D.C. but did not apply to the states?  It took the follow up McDonald decision to apply that decision to the states.  Mexico’s lawsuit is in federal court.  A narrow SCOTUS’ ruling might reject Mexico’s federal case but leave the door open for other lawsuits through state courts, which would not ‘beat the point spread.”.

On the other hand, a broad ruling might attempt to stop these lawsuits through the states.  (Emphasis on ‘attempt to stop’ since states like New York have judges that do not let SCOTUS’ decisions stop them from allowing obviously losing law suits in order to tie gun manufacturers up in court and cost the gun manufacturers millions to defend themselves.) 

One thing to remember is that judges often sit on cases of which they do NOT have a sophisticated understanding.  For instance, Justice Kagan made a comment about easily scraped off serial numbers and Justice Sotomayer Sotomayer made comments about manufacturers making easily erasable serial numbers.  They or their law clerks will, hopefully, learn that firearm manufacturers permanent mark serial numbers on firearm’s frames or receivers according to precise ATF regulations, in a way that serial numbers cannot be “easily erased.”  It’s a crime to make a firearm that is not marked (serialized) according to ATF’s regulation and it is a serious crime to obliterate a serial number. Even if erased, there are methods to raise or reveal an obliterated serial

In a moment of sanity, Justice Alito asked if U.S. states could, in return, sue the Mexican government for the flood of fentanyl pouring into American cities?  A great example of unintended consequences.

In any case, no matter what the decision, the anti-gun left will soon be seeking anything they can use to try and subvert the 2nd Amendment.  We can only hope for a broad decision which will make the left’s work a little harder.