Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 16:04:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vqch2l$31qnb$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 17:04:38 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="00e663c037d2936c695305e5a3249647";
	logging-data="3205867"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fR10ILJwuI36kwDUnbEm/5jXYje1eXIQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nNHUj+uWEGf/UnfllInYRMRpiXA=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 5289

From what little I've read about this case, the government of Mexico
sued Smith & Wesson for aiding and abetting crime committed by drug
cartels using their weapons. The suit was filed in 2021 in Massachusetts
district court; the traditional S&W headquarters was Springfield, where
Horace Smith was from. They relocated to Tennessee which has friendlier
state laws.

The suit was filed under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,
which has narrow windows in which gun manufacturers may be sued.
Generally, other industries do not have industry-specific legislation
like this.

There have to be allegations of deceptive marketing practices to file
suit. Generally, the manufacturer is not liable for harm from unlawful
uses of its products. This does not shield them from liability in
manufacturing defects.

The marketing aspect, I thought, is specious, that the weapons are
appealing to cartels by design. Surely, it's by function.

The second problem with the lawsuit is Mexico's allegation of willful
misconduct in distribution, that S&W had knowledge of which avenues of
distribution were leading to illegal export.

The problem here seems to be lack of evidence. Forgive me, but Mexico
never found the "smoking gun" document as arms manufacturers keep
themselves well insulated from ultimate users of their products.

As a general matter, as distribution is part of the manufacturing
process, there should be responsibility for weeding out the bad actors.
This argument, that the manufacturer has no responsibility for
distribution, ultimately failed to shield the Sackler family from
liability from maldistribution of OxyContin.

District court dismissed the lawsuit but First Circuit (based in Boston)
reinstated it.

To argue before the Supreme Court, the merchants of death hired Noel
Francisco, solicitor general in the first Trump administration and now a
partner with Jones Day.

Mexico doesn't appear to have made its case on illegal conduct in
distribution.

	[Neil Gorsuch] observed that to be liable for aiding and abetting,
	it isn't enough for the gun makers to know that they were
	facilitating violations of the laws; they had to intend to do so.

Perhaps he's correct that it's the wrong legal standard to use because
there's no way to prove intent. Why aren't quantities enough? The
Sacklers lost on intent because statistics of distribution of OxyContin
were absurd, that quantities prescribed and sold in tiny towns weren't
justified by population. Doctors were drug pushers and pharmacies were
trafficking.

ATF informs manufacturers of patterns of illegal use of guns, but
somehow, manufacturers have no responsibility for identifying the bad
actors?

Mexico is so weak on the facts that they aren't alleging actual
violations of US law, a comment by Ketanji Brown Jackson. Elena Kagan
said that Mexico didn't present facts that manufacturers were aware of
problems with specific dealers.

I hope the decision is narrow just based on a lack of facts. I don't see
a constitutional issue here, but you never know what Thomas will do.

There's got to be some law being violated as the United States can
make it illegal to export guns. This lawsuit's ridiculous but there
should have been a valid argument to make.

It's not a Supreme Court argument, but Mexico's legal position aids and
abets Trump's position that the cartels are a well-armed military force
operating internationally who should be pursued into Mexico by the
United States Army.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/high-court-likely-to-block-mexicos-suit-against-gun-makers/

Once again, Emily Taylor came up in my YouTube feed. She and Richard
Hayes are criminal defense attorneys. I get a kick out of their videos
in which they explain defense strategies with respect to self defense in
the use of a gun which, even in Texas, is a difficult argument to make on
behalf of many of their clients.

I rarely agree with their Second Amendment arguments. Still, I'm willing
to listen.

Emily can get emotional at times in recounting stories of prosecutors
and police violating rights of their clients. Of course, some of their
clients are absolute scum but they are still entitled to fairness in
treatment by police and prosecution and the courts,

They're not quite providing the analysis I was looking for but I haven't
found anything better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8S4afQ6tN4