[BOISE] – Attorney General Raúl Labrador joined a coalition of 27 states in defending American firearms manufacturers against attempts to hold the companies liable for gun violence in Mexico. If a lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, Americans’ Second Amendment rights could be threatened.
In their petition, the attorneys general ask the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to correct a lower court’s ruling in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et.al., v. Mexico to keep other nations, like Mexico, from using American courts to limit the rights of American citizens.
This case is a part of the continued attack on the American firearms industry,” said Attorney General Labrador. “I will never sit back and let a foreign nation dictate the freedoms of American citizens, especially when Mexico’s own hypocritical inaction about immigration, drug cartels, and the border has created such damage here on U.S. soil.”
The Mexican government claims that firearms manufacturers should be held liable for the gun violence occurring south of the border since the companies know some of their products are unlawfully trafficked into the country. However, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA) to balance Americans’ Second Amendment right with the need to keep guns away from criminals while protecting firearms companies from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.
Mexico’s case was first dismissed by a federal judge in Massachusetts in 2022. Then, on appeal, the First Circuit wrongly held that Mexico’s claims fall within an exception to PLCAA, which narrowly authorizes suits alleging knowing violations of firearms laws that proximately cause a plaintiff’s injuries. To squeeze Mexico’s case into that narrow exception, the First Circuit’s decision relies on an expansive view of proximate causation that will eviscerate PLCAA.
The attorneys general argue that the petition should be granted because Congress – not the judiciary – regulates the firearms industry, to enforce the PLCAA and definitively address the scope of its exceptions, and because Mexico’s sovereign power undercuts any claim of proximate causation.
“Mexico could simply close—indeed, militarize—its border with the United States if it chose to do so,” the brief states. “Doubtless the closure would be painful, and Mexico has chosen to do otherwise. Indeed, Mexico has flung its border open and sought to extort billions of dollars from the United States to even attempt to manage the resulting chaos. Mexico should not be permitted to exert de facto control over the rights of American citizens to alleviate the consequences of its own policy choices.”
Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, along with the Arizona Legislature also joined the brief led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.
2 replies on “Labrador Defends American Firearms Manufacturers from Liability for Mexico’s Gun Violence”
Bravo, Idaho Attorney General Labrador!
If the Mexican government wasn’t ran from the back door by the Cartels, then they wouldn’t have the crime problem they do now and have had for decades. This law fare case is just another ruse used to miss direct the uninformed public of the truth.
Weapons don’t harm or kill people! Its “evil people” that do the killing! Firearms are just a tool, but they can be used for nefarious reasons. However, it still is “the person” behind the weapon that is the major problem…….
Keep up the great work you and your office are doing for all Idahoans!
SECOND AMENDMENT IMPOTENCY
Such insanity is but another consequence of the impotent Second Amendment and its optional Enlightenment right, juxtaposed with the Bible’s potent non-optional responsibility to defend ourselves, our families, and others.
America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.
Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand … this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?
Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?
Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?
For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/#FeaturedMessages
At this same location, you will also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on this same subject. I think you’ll find Mr. Pratt’s remarks especially interesting.
See also online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html