By John Q. Hosedrinker US Appeals Court Revives Mexico’s $10bn Lawsuit Against Gunmakers
As news broke that a US appeals court has revived Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against gunmakers, I couldn’t help but feel conflicted about the situation. On one hand, I understand Mexico’s concerns about the flood of military-style weapons that are being used by cartels, weapons that not even US citizens can legally own. It’s a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. On the other hand, I can’t help but question the effectiveness and fairness of this lawsuit.
Mexico argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law that shields the gun industry from liability, doesn’t apply in this case because the injuries caused by these weapons are happening outside of the United States. This argument seems like a good point to make. After all, if guns in Mexico are illegal, why is the US being sued? Shouldn’t the focus be on suing the cartels themselves, the ones who are actually responsible for the violence?
It’s also worth considering the perspective of the gun manufacturers. These companies are bound by federal law, which dictates that they can only sell their products to the government or to civilian gun sellers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). These FFL holders are required to follow strict laws and regulations, and any violations can lead to the revocation of their license by the ATF.
Even if we overlook the fact that many of the guns used by cartels probably come from the Mexican military or were even part of controversial programs like Operation Fast and Furious, it still seems unfair to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal activity. They were simply following federal law, selling their products to customers who had been licensed and background checked by the government.
In the end, this lawsuit seems like a futile effort. The distance between cause and effect is vast in the court of law. Mexico may level accusations against gunmakers, but the burden of proof will be challenging to meet. The spirit of the law, which shields manufacturers from liability, will likely prevail. Therefore, it is unlikely that this lawsuit will succeed in holding gunmakers responsible for the violence caused by cartels.
Instead of wasting time and resources on suing gun manufacturers, perhaps Mexico should consider redirecting its efforts towards tackling the root of the problem. Addressing the issue of the cartels and their control over both sides of the border would be a more effective approach in curbing violence and the illicit firearms trade.
While it’s essential to hold individuals and entities responsible for their actions, it’s important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. The real culprits here are the cartels, who profit from the illegal trade of firearms and perpetuate violence. By focusing on the gun manufacturers, we risk overlooking the systemic issues that breed crime and contribute to Mexico’s challenges.
Ultimately, this lawsuit against gunmakers seems like a misguided attempt to assign blame to the wrong party. Instead of targeting manufacturers who are simply following federal law, Mexico should turn its attention to combating the cartels and strengthening their own internal security measures. In the pursuit of justice, it’s crucial to remember the key players involved and address the root causes of the issue at hand.