There are lots of good cases for SCOTUS to review. I wish an “assault weapon” ban were on the docket and eventually, perhaps incidentally with the “assault weapon” case, get NFA thrown out. The serial number/home build guns issue is being heard and is almost certain to go our way. Eventually I can see the background checks being dropped and being able to order guns online without an FFL. After all, FFL’s are not part of our history and tradition of gun laws.
In the meantime, this is probably a higher priority case than any of the above, even if it is a distraction from the individual rights cases:
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear ‘Business-Crushing’ Gun Case (msn.com)
The United States Supreme Court will hear case about whether Mexico can sue Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. for facilitating sales to people connected with Mexico’s drug cartels.
On Friday, the justices agreed to hear Smith & Wesson’s case seeking to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Mexican government. Mexico sued the gun maker and is asking for billions of dollars in damages and new gun-control measures. It’s the first suit by a national government against the gun industry, and one that Smith & Wesson warn could completely decimate their industry.
In a letter addressed to the Supreme Court clerk on August 8, a lawyer for Smith & Wesson Brands said the company is protected from a 2005 law that provides liability shields to gunmakers.
…
In the lawsuit, Mexico alleged the manufactures and distributors were helping the purchase of their firearms by dealers who were known to supply the drug cartels. It also is claimed that the companies did not make changes, such as installing safeguards or making gun serial numbers harder to tamper with, that could make the guns less likely for criminal use.
I have to wonder why former President Obama and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder are not named in the lawsuit. Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress for his actions in this case. They are the people that forced the gun dealers to sell guns to the Mexican cartels.
But I don’t wonder long. The likely reason is that Operation Fast and Furious was a ruse to generate a means to bring down gun dealers and manufacturers.
Talk about not having standing. Are gun manufacturers selling guns directly to Mexican cartels in Mexico?
And don’t cartel buyers have to pass background checks, done by the FBI, before their allowed to walk out the door with a gun?
Just like the rest of us?
Unless they can show our manufacturers knowingly and with criminal intent are saleing guns directly to cartels?
They should have been shown the door and told to go pound sand.
Now if they were suing the CIA for it’s work with the cartels? They got lots of cause and injury. (Hell, we should be suing the CIA for that matter.)
Maybe angel families should sue the Mexican government for drugs being sold in America? Add China to the suit also?
For a country that has that strict of gun control and a murder rate that high?
Once again, guns aren’t their problem. Criminal mind set is.
And in Met-ti-co? The government is the one that trained everyone else.
“More political candidates — six — have been killed in the state of Guerrero, where Acapulco is located, than in any other in Mexico. From September to May, across Mexico, 34 candidates or aspiring candidates have been assassinated. Security analysts say the killings are mostly linked to drug cartels seeking to influence local elections.”
Ya, that certainly will skew an election!
Maybe they will sue us for giving weapons to Ukraine that end up on their streets to?
I would love for them to sue Raytheon.
Communism, it only ends in the grave.
Don’t know about Ukraine but I would bet the farm that some of the weapons abandoned in Afghanistan wound up in Mexico. The full auto weapons that the cartels love clearly didn’t come from American gun stores. AFAIK, S&W doesn’t even make full auto weapons.
Oh absolutely.
Since the CIA was running Afghan heroin through the Mexican cartels for 20 years. (Funny why we have these long wars in the best heroin growing regions in the world?)
I’m certain semi-close ties were established.
And just an FYI. Ukraine is Russia’s Mexico. It’s as corrupt as any So. American banana state you could find.
Everything from keeping dead soldiers on the payroll (paid in cash of course, that generals kept.), To saleing our arms on the black market.
Whatever scam you could come up with in your mind for those circumstances?
Is probably up and running in Ukraine, and worse than you could imagine.
There’s a reason why people who escape there say they’re never going back.
Unfortunately for us, That’s how the world works. And were about to get a hard lesson in predatory economics 101.
S&W used to make a submachinegun. Mod 76? I recall a gun shop that used one, among others, to repel a gang, in Fl, many years ago.
They should have been shown the door and told to go pound sand.
IIRC, they were. Then they appealed and the (extremely anti-2A) 2nd Circuit reversed the dismissal and allowed (blessed?) the case to proceed. Mexico chose to file the suit in Massachusetts for a reason.
What I don’t understand is how a foreign entity is found to have standing to sue on domestic issues. The correct answer is, they don’t have standing. (I love Rolf’s idea below, that they have standing but lose the case and open themselves up to an epic counter-suit, but the problem with that is, if Mexico has standing to sue over domestic policy issues, then so do China, and Russia, and North Korea, and Iran, and the U.N., and…. Better to just set the precedent that foreign governments don’t have standing to demand domestic policy and order them to reimburse the gun companies’ legal costs.)
SCOTUS shouldn’t have had to grant cert for this case, because it should have been dismissed for lack of standing at every level, and then they could deny cert and let the dismissals stand.
Let’s not forget suing Mehico for facilitating the passage of millions of illegals and terrorists through their country on the way to our border; not to mention letting their own people cross without stopping them.
And off topic, but I see where blogspot(google) has apparently decided that elmtreeforge(ironsinthefire) offrnend their censors so now goo wants his readers to sign on goo in order to access his site.
Yep. Google requires sign-in because they feel the need to keep track of who is reading such “dangerous” and “insurrectionist” ideas.
And they’ll freely share that information with the FBI and DHS if asked, no warrant required. (What’s the definition of “fascism” again?)
Anyone who still thinks this is a coincidence or random happenstance, isn’t paying much attention.
It would be great to say they have standing to sue (but they lose the case). Then we can sue Mex for all their cartel drug and human trafficking they facilitate (which is pretty much a matter of public policy, they couldn’t win versus such a charge). If we then just demand that we tariff all remittances across the border to them to compensate, things get interesting.
SCOTUS cases and rulings are nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Fed Gov and it’s myriad parasitic agencies ignore any rulings from the courts they don’t like, picking and choosing only those that serve their needs in their quest to abuse and enslave citizens. We live in a post legal society now where the law exists only as a tool for those in power to use as part of their abusive assaults on freedom.
What color is the sky in your universe? In my universe the sky is blue and due to SCOTUS decisions, you can now get a concealed carry license (or constitutionally carry) in all 50 states.
Just don’t carry in the myriad gun free zones which in the really bad states are basically everywhere except your home. And even some of the good state (looking at you, TX) allow private actors to establish such with criminal penalties.
Agreed. But SCOTUS did improve things. Also, you can now buy handguns in D.C. and Chicago.
I am not crazy enough to even visit those places. Last I knew they had 0-1 FFLs
If the SCOTUS were truly on our side they would do the obvious. They would rule that the Second means what it says and says exactly what the authors intended. They would then rule that ALL laws involving the ownership, use, sale, possession, carrying and transfer of ALL weapons were unconstitutional. But they haven’t. And they won’t. That makes what they are doing just asking “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Pointless legal ponderings. And the leftists couldn’t give a rats ass WHAT the courts say…if it doesn’t serve their agenda. THAT is reality.
Very rarely, if ever, does the courts system upset all of the applecarts at once. That just isn’t how our courts system works. If something like that needs to happen, it is generally performed by degrees & by stages. Like what’s happening right now, in front of your very eyes, and comparatively rapidly, as these things go. Real life is messier than philosophy.