A Federal Appeals Court is letting a lawsuit by Mexico against several gun makers go forward...

Link

Nothing burger eventually going nowhere…

Total horseshit!

Do we get to die the Mexican government for letting the cartels run free?



.

The exception found by the State Supreme Court of Connecticut went over and sent Remington’s group on into to bankruptcy.

It sounds like the same exception the State Supreme Court of Connecticut identified.

I think it is interesting, and has the potential to write out the state claim used in Connecticut.

Laws drawn by judges who are lawyers.

Do you expect any sense?

stupid. Are knife manufacturers liable because their products are sharp?

Maybe, if the manufacturer markets their knives as buy this one, go forth, and kill.

That is how some arms manufacturers have been found to have been marketing there products according to a jury.

The issue is not that the knife is sharp nor the gun shoots. The issue did the company in marketing the firearm do so in a neglect manner that satisfied the dual prongs of causation, and did the firearms manufacturer have a duty to those killed to not so market.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut said this was a viable exception, not covered by the federal statute. The federal Supreme Court refused to review the matter.

It appears this Federal Cir. Ct., is applying the same distinction allowing Mexico to sue.

Will it hold up? Does firearm companies owe a duty (assuming one exists) to foreign nations. Is this exemption found by the Supreme Court of Connecticut viable under S.Ct., review against the Fed statute?

I do not know. The S. Ct., will be forced this time to grant certi.

The S. Ct., could keep the exception in place, but deny Mexico standing or determine unlike the citizens of a state, firearms manufacturers do not have a duty to foreign nations. A majority of the Court could kill the whole thing. I doubt this gets upheld. That is more of a feeling.

Note: it has been awhile since I read the Connecticut case. The theory of liability may have been reckless or wanton instead of negligence. The distinction is nuanced. In impact, one can get punitives for wanton or reckless conduct.

To say this and Connecticut were actions brought because guns shoot or guns kill people, like knife sharp, is not accurate.

I dunno. Seems goofy to me and I don't understand the legal argument.

The Mexican government says "the defendants are aware their practices arm cartels but do nothing to stop it" and, per Heym's (correct) statements "Mexico claims the weapons are designed and marketed in ways that are attractive to the cartels, and the defendants allegedly maintain a distribution system that facilitates illegal trafficking."

I personally can't say that I have seen any sort of firearms marketing by these manufacturers that seems to be designed to be "attractive" to drug cartels. Unless by manufacturing a completely reliable pistol, Glock is trying to attract Cartel business. The same as they are trying to attract law enforcement business?
Seems stupid to me.

You've got a company engaged in a legal business practice but when somebody takes your product and illegally imports it into another country where it is used for illegal purposes, you are legally responsible?

I'd bet this case eventually gets tossed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
A Federal Appeals Court is letting a lawsuit by Mexico against several gun makers go forward...

Link

Edward Abbey recommended meeting migrants at the border, furnishing them with a rifle and ammunition and turning them back.
Let Mexico solve its customary problems in its customary manner, he said...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I dunno. Seems goofy to me and I don't understand the legal argument.

The Mexican government says "the defendants are aware their practices arm cartels but do nothing to stop it" and, per Heym's (correct) statements "Mexico claims the weapons are designed and marketed in ways that are attractive to the cartels, and the defendants allegedly maintain a distribution system that facilitates illegal trafficking."

I personally can't say that I have seen any sort of firearms marketing by these manufacturers that seems to be designed to be "attractive" to drug cartels. Unless by manufacturing a completely reliable pistol, Glock is trying to attract Cartel business. The same as they are trying to attract law enforcement business?
Seems stupid to me.

You've got a company engaged in a legal business practice but when somebody takes your product and illegally imports it into another country where it is used for illegal purposes, you are legally responsible?

I'd bet this case eventually gets tossed.

Beretta who use to post on her had the best example. It was taken down by the manufacturer shortly after the Connecticut killing. A adult finger pointing to a small child in the floor to pick up an AR.

I am personally sick of the tactical, military type commercials that was so prevalent.

I mis the old Marlin Commercial. The one that had father and son. They were sitting against a tree drinking hot chocolate right after snow waiting on a deer. As the commercial faded out, the words Marlin.

I have seen grandps pull his crimson trace Kimber commercial. The one with the garage door up he is approached by a group of younger men w no Selina. He immediately piles out his gun, “ This is condition crimson.” No, that is not when one is permitted to present deadly force.

A firearm is not for deescalation. It is to meet a reasonable belief , both objective and subjective, one is currently being faced with the risk of substantial injury or death.

That commercial is the same attitude that got a young man shot by a “scared” old man for knocking on the door.

Now, I completely agree no one marketing to the cartels. The idea that got over in Connecticut was the marketing was designed neglectfully to young persons, persons w mental health issues, that if you need to kill someone real bad, and real fast, or a lot of somebodies buy our AR.

I find it interesting if this will nullify the legal exception created, found on the Federal Law by Connecticut.

I keep saying an exception. It was not an exception in that the Fed law craved our such legal actions. What the Supreme Court of Connecticut held was the Fed law did not on its face, bar such state law tort actions based on this negligence in marketing theory.

The illegal distribution by manufactures seems very bizarre to me. Seems like if the CZ group that owns Colt were back dooring ARs or M16s to Mexican drug lords the Fed law enforcement would have a field day with that. I cannot come up w a recognized theory absent affirmative action or affirmative knowledge of illegal trade (known or should have known) to explain that.

Effectively you are seeing lawfare.

The gun control types are suing (because they can and have money…). This forces defense of the suit, and thus paying lawyers.

Things become either more expensive, or they just quit because it’s too much of a pain…

Don’t forget the ban on silicone implants by lawsuit even though the science said it wasn’t related.