[ad_1]
Join Fox News to access this content
You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create a free account to continue reading.
By entering your email to continue, you agree to Fox News Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. This includes notifications of financial incentives.
Please enter a valid email address.
Are there any problems? click here.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of Mexican efforts to hold American gunmen legally responsible for their weapons being smuggled and contributing to the country’s drug cartel violence.
During a lively oral discussion of 90 minutes, the judge debated whether the production and sales of firearms in the United States were the source of suspected injuries to the Mexican government and its people.
A Southern US neighbour with strict gun sales restrictions has argued that they should be allowed to file a $10 billion civil lawsuit in American courts.
DoD sends more than 1,000 additional troops to strengthen efforts on the southern border
However, weapons manufacturers say their “daily business practices” are unfairly targeted and strongly deny that they know that their products are being illegally transported to Mexico.
Both sides of the bench asked difficult questions.
“The straw sellers know they sell guns to people who are trying to use them illegally because if they are not, they will not use straw buyers, illegal activities will cause harm, and they will harm guns being used in some way to hurt people, is it correct?” Judge Sonia Sotomayor said he summarised Mexico’s legal status.
President Trump has imposed tariffs on Mexico, and Mexican President Claudia Sinbaum has worked with the United States to undertake cartels and fentanyl. Mexico has also launched a lawsuit in which they serve as American gunmen legally responsible for their weapons being smuggled into the country and contributed to cartel violence. (Reuters)
“The theory that supports and relies on you to blame will have a devastating effect on the US economy,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh said. “Many of the sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they are misused by a subset of people. They know for sure it will be a drug, a car, something you can name, a lot of products. That’s a real concern.”
The case comes to the High Court at delicate times, both politically and diplomatically.
The Trump administration urged the Mexican government to better patrol the border and stop drugs and immigrants from entering the United States, but Mexican officials have called for US firearms to stop ending in Mexico.
The public session discussion will provide a well-known American forum for complaints about Mexico and its north neighbours, just as the US launched historic tariffs on Mexico’s imports on Tuesday.
Mexican president on Trump’s tariffs: “No one wins”
The case could also affect the broader national debate over competing rights contained in the Second Amendment.
The 2005 federal law is known as the protection of the Legal Commercial Transactions Act (PLCAA). It was designed to protect cancer manufacturers from civil litigation when the product is criminally misused by others. However, Mexico relies on legal exceptions to pursue its claims.
Families of gun violence, like the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012, have since tried to file such claims, but this is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled its limits.
These families reached a $73 million off-court settlement with gun maker Remington.
The Remington rifle will be exhibited at the NRA Annual Meeting held on May 5, 2018 at the Cay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, Texas. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Gun control supporters argue that the High Court’s ruling against Mexico will make it difficult to chase our gunmen when future mass shootings occur.
Gun rights groups retort that legal and heavily regulated industries should not be held liable for criminal conduct committed by armed gangs in other countries.
According to the US Alcohol Service, cigarettes, firearms and explosives estimates, between 200,000 and 500,000 American-made guns known as “Iron River” are illegally trafficked in Mexico every year.
Over 70% of illegal guns seized in Mexico between 2013 and 2018 were sold in the United States. It is on sale after the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention, named after former Congressman Gabby Giffords, in a 2011 Arizona mass shooting.
There were no private shops, gun shows or commercial production of firearms in Mexico.
Court records show that as of 2018, only 3,215 civil gun licenses were issued in the country for low-caliber weapons, and illegal possession was the third major cause of criminal prisons.
Mexico is usually the top three countries worldwide for annual gun deaths.
Mexican complaints allege that 2% of guns manufactured in the US are smuggled into Mexico. (Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty Images)
Two weeks ago, the Trump administration designated six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
Much of the verbal debate centers on whether complex comer pipelines can sue gunmen on a “proximity case” standard when they move to wholesalers, distributors, rogue retailers, straw buyers, smugglers, and the Mexican cartel itself.
“You’re not suing the retailer, the closest cause of harm,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett told Mexican lawyer Katherine Stetson. “And you haven’t identified them anything I can tell in the complaint.”
“Everything you were sought in this case would amount to the different types of regulatory constraints that Congress doesn’t want to be imposed on the court,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in regards to remedies such as gun distribution and marketing practices.
Click here to get the Fox News app
However, some in the court suggested that the scope of the issues Mexico argued would have real consequences.
“The complaints say that 2% of guns manufactured in the US have found a way to Mexico,” asked Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, lawyer Noel Francisco, gun maker. “And I know you’ll object to it, but there are a number that may need to change your legal analysis. If it’s 10%, then 20%?
The case is Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. This is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141). A verdict is expected by late June.
[ad_2]Source link
