MEXICO suing US firearms manufacturers

Status
Not open for further replies.
If any part of their claim is about the harm being caused in Mexico due to US made guns crossing the border illegally, then I would think one of the border states would be a more logical choice of venue.

However, Mass courts do have a long history of not being favorable to gun owners, so,,,, draw your own conclusions...

isn't S&W still located in MA? They are one of the companies being sued, so MAYBE that's their reasoning???

One does wonder, if, harm from US guns crossing the border into Mexico illegally is a valid premise, then isn't suing Mexico for harm resulting from Mexican people crossing the border into the US illegally also valid??

Seems so to me, but I doubt govts see it that way...
 
I'm interested in the case but I freely admit the whole legal thing is over my head.

To prove that I don't understand this stuff I'll ask the following question, why wouldn't Mexico sue in some form of the World Court or International Court. It's my impression those courts don't like the US much.
 
@DaleA,

You can't be that out of touch because that is one heck of a good question !

Here's my 1 1/2 cent take, as some have pointed out here it's a set-up by certain entities to go after gun rights in America.
The reason why the insurance company caves because they can't starve them out, the families of Sandy Hook have money.

But again it's all cleverly orchestrated. And the real reason why Mexico disarmed their citizens several years back because the real government down there is in fact the Cartels.
 
word of warning

To all who are considering posting comments, and those who already have, remember where you are.

This is the Law and Civil Rights forum.

(re) READ THE FORUM RULES!

We do not do politics here.

Discussion of actions and proposed acts must be done in the framework of how they are affected by our laws and how they may affect our civil rights, and the primary focus is on our firearms rights.

Bringing politics and political agendas (real OR imagined) into the discussion here is not just off topic, it is OFF LIMITS.

There are lots of other places on the Internet to discuss politics and such things. This is not one of them.
 
Dale, while international courts may tend to not be fond of America, suing a manufacturer in a nation where a product they manufactured causes harm in another nation after being ILLEGALLY imported is probably a bright line sticking point of “not going anywhere.” The more appropriate target of that suit would be the individuals who introduce the item in the country.

Besides, cartels still cause more havoc with full-auto AK47s than anything else. If anything they could sue America for the wars in the Middle East making the supply of those limited, and hence cartels now often use more accurate weapons as a result. This is purely political, and likely a concoction of soros or Bloomberg as previously mentioned.
 
I would think a lot of left of AK's from Nicaragua would be all over the place in cartel hands...

Anyway they should sue obummer for the fast and furious fiasco... That was all on him.

Tony
 
It wasn't the US gun manufacturers that did anything wrong. If the Mexican government had an issue with firearms, they could have blocked them from being imported. However, I seem to remember three clowns that violated the law along the border big time. They should be suing Obama, Biden, and Holder over Project Gunrunner?
 
As far as I'm concerned, any govt suing any private manufacturer for damages due to criminal misuse of an otherwise lawful product is simply looking for a court to award them money for NOT DOING THEIR JOBS properly.

I am totally opposed to awarding money (no matter if it comes from private pockets or tax dollars) to "compensate" for the cost of govt FAILING its basic responsibility.

Because that is what this really is. The Mexican govt has failed to protect its citizens, Their EXCUSE is to blame US gun makers. And they want a court to order they get paid by those gunmakers for what they have failed to do.

I've said and will say the same thing when the govt involved is our own. Big city mayors tried that. and for the same reason, to shift the blame for their failure to a third party and force them to pay because they were "responsible" for gun violence.

The gun laws in big cities are at least as strict as the laws in the rest of the country, and in most cases, far stricter. IF your city has a problem with violence involving guns, the reason is not that guns exist, the reason is that you, the city govt (and that includes police and prosecutors & the court system), those people HIRED (including elected) to keep the public safe, are not doing the job they are hired to do well enough.

I think rewarding them with money via a court decision is exactly the wrong thing to do.
 
Any way if this case goes to discovery , the gun manufacturers can bring up fast and furious . Resulting in the ability to circumvent the executive privilege and opening up those records for discovery ?
 
Tom Servo said:
Actually, I'm wondering if there are American gun-control advocates helping with this.

They recently got Remington to settle for $33 million in a lawsuit related to Sandy Hook, and they've been pushing numerous lawsuits that should be invalidated by the PLCAA. The timing and method seems awfully coincidental.
Click to expand...
It sure sounds like a contrived assault on the legislation that protects gun manufacturers doesn’t it? Why wasn’t this tried by Mexico with the previous administration? My guess would be this is a top down strategy from the highest levels.
 
DaleA said:
I'm interested in the case but I freely admit the whole legal thing is over my head.

To prove that I don't understand this stuff I'll ask the following question, why wouldn't Mexico sue in some form of the World Court or International Court. It's my impression those courts don't like the US much.
Click to expand...
A couple of things come to mind. Mind you, these are no more that educated speculation:

1. It may be easier to get personal jurisdiction over the gun manufacturers in an American court.

2. The US courts may generally award higher damages, or may have other mechanisms (like how they award attorneys' fees) that make litigation in a US court more desirable.

3. The World Court or International Court may only have jurisdiction to hear suits between countries, not private entities.
 
I worked in Mexico for 16 years. Six of those 16 years I carried their version of our green card. From my experience, the cartels are better equipped then the local police, federales and the military. At the time I was there the federales carried a clone of the HK 308 rifle. I never paid attention to the pistols they use as it does not pay to stare too much at law-enforcement officials when in country.

given the times that we find ourselves in, it’s any man’s guess how this will turn out IMHO.
 
Lima Oscar 7 said:
Why wasn’t this tried by Mexico with the previous administration?
Click to expand...


Because they understood what the game was I'm sure. But all of this goes much deeper than simply gun rights in America. This is also being pushed by the European Union.

The ultimate goal is to stop guns for public use. They confiscate thousands of guns every year over there with most coming out of Florida. The gun manufactures will jump in bed with anyone who keeps them in business.

Sig is sitting sweet now if the public band comes into play.

The Globalist like Bloomberg and company fear the public a.k.a. the poor every getting wise to it all and coming after their wealth. That wise part is how the system has been screwing us since mankind crawled out of the slime.

Europe is a prime example of what can happen when you truly have no real rights.
And if you want to see how bad it can get look no further than what is happening in Australia at the moment, they are now using the military to enforce the CONVID-19 lockdown there.

And nothing they can do about it as they were cleverly disarmed a few years ago.
Do you remember when the citizens where allowed to defend themselves in Mexico.
It's a totally corrupt and failed State now.
 
Mexico alleges that the defendants design, market, distribute and sell guns in ways that routinely arm drug cartels in Mexico, "Defendants use reckless and corrupt gun dealers and dangerous and illegal sales practices that the cartels rely on to get their guns."

"Defendants design these guns to be easily modified to fire automatically and to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico," the suit continued.
Click to expand...

quoted from the article linked in the OP.

IF this is factual, the Mexican lawsuit has a lot to PROOVE, that I don't think can be proven. First, are we talking "illegal" under US law. or under Mexican law????

"reckless and dangerous sales practices",,, that one need more than a bit of explanation...

But the last bit is what gets me, HOW does one design a gun to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico???

Seriously, what design features need to be in a gun to do that??? show me a list and then show me how each feature on that list makes the gun "readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico" ....

My guess is that they are hoping for a sympathetic court, who will be moved by their tale of woe, and will not consider the facts or the actual law and be shamed into award gazillions in damages to be taken from the deep pockets of corporate greed (gunmakers) and given as compensation to the Mexican government, to help poor downtrodden, suffering masses in their country.

thoughts??
 
In the mid 1990’s, I believe you could own a handgun with stipulations but it could not be a military caliber. If I remember correctly, .380 and .38 Super were allowable albeit on an extremely limited and conditional basis. We were well educated on Mexican law from our legal eagles. No ammo whatsoever——-one round could put you in a situation where the quality and safety of your surroundings were contingent upon your ability to pay.

Having witnessed more than one high school kid succumb to Mexican black tar heroin, perhaps we should countersue for the Mexican Government’s failure to keep Cartel-provided illicit drugs off our streets?
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
thoughts??
Click to expand...



They'll see never see a dime from it, straight into the crooked pockets and the poor will be still be flooding over the border by 2024.

Point 2, the gun manufactures can't fight the money behind this, so you bankrupt them. I suspect in the future most will declare bankruptcy to survive.

It's a dangerous precedent. But easy to do with guns because unlike Google or Apple guns are evil right. :) With enough idiots out here to believe it.


But how did this all get started. By cities paying out to b l ack families so there would be no riots if a family member was killed by the police. I watched it all for the last 20 odd years in slow motion, each time I saw Al Sharpton in the background I realize it was payoff time.

And it all stem from the Rodney King ordeal out in L.A. back in the early 90's.


From that we get corporations paying out to settle rather than fighting it. As Trump once said no one liked to sue him because he didn't cave in, he would challenge it in court.

But the real bottom line to all of this is a way for lawyers to make a living.
Back in the 1990's when George jr. was governor in Texas it got so bad with malpractice lawsuits against the hospitals and doctors he capped the awards and almost over night the grifters started looking for another easy target.


People don't understand that America doesn't have a Justice system, never has, it's a Legal system fueled soley by money. America now has as many lawyers as it does bums.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top