First Circuit allows lawsuit to continue by Mexico against several gun manufacturers.

K

KyJim

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
557
Location
Kentucky
Mexico sued a number of gun makers seeking 10 billion in damages because of guns making their way illegally into Mexico. The Court said Mexico had plausibly stated a claim because the federal law generally giving immunity to gun makers only applies to legal sales, not to illegally trafficked guns into another country.

News story by Reuters at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...illion-lawsuit-against-gun-makers-2024-01-22/

The opinion can be found at http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1823P-01A.pdf. It is 60 pages long and I have not yet read it.
 
KyJim said:
The Court said Mexico had plausibly stated a claim because the federal law generally giving immunity to gun makers only applies to legal sales, not to illegally trafficked guns into another country.
Click to expand...
So are they alleging the manufacturers are themselves responsible for illegally trafficking the guns, or are they somehow asserting that liability for acts done by criminal third parties can somehow be 'backtracked' onto the makers who violated no laws?

IANAL but this seems flimsy at best.
 
Elkins45 said:
So are they alleging the manufacturers are themselves responsible for illegally trafficking the guns, or are they somehow asserting that liability for acts done by criminal third parties can somehow be 'backtracked' onto the makers who violated no laws?

IANAL but this seems flimsy at best.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the decision, a link to which was posted in the OP, might contain some hints. That’s the place to start.
 
FROM THE OPINION:
...we. . .hold that Mexico's complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA's general prohibition.....

Mexico alleges....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that one way defendants deliberately facilitate gun trafficking into Mexico is by designing their guns as military-style weapons,
knowing that such weapons are particularly sought after by the drug cartels in Mexico.

Defendants also choose to forego safety features (such as allowing only recognized users to fire the weapon) that might decrease the guns'
attractiveness to wrongdoers

Mexico alleges that defendants not only design their guns as military-grade weapons; they also market them as such. Defendants' marketing
materials depict their weapons in use by or in proximity to military and law enforcement personnel

transactions that pose a particularly high risk of trafficking include sales of multiple guns to the same buyer over a limited period of time; sales
by "kitchen-table" dealers who deal online or in locations that make it easy to avoid regulations; and sales by non-licensed sellers at gun shows
without background checks.

Mexico alleges that defendants are aware of these practices and the resulting trafficking of guns into Mexico, yet deliberately maintain a
distribution system that facilitates - 9 - illegal sales, resisting calls for reform by the U.S. government and prominent gun industry insiders,
among others. Not only that, but defendants are aware that specific distributor and dealer networks are disproportionately associated with
gun trafficking into Mexico.

result of defendants' affirmative and deliberate efforts to create and maintain an illegal market for their weapons in Mexico.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bottom Line: THE MEXICAN Complaint was largely authored -- if not actually written line-by-line -- by our own domestic Gun Control fanatics
 
Last edited:
If you read the opinion you will see 3 pages of amicus curiae brief firms and AGs. It is a very political case, gun banners jumped in with both feet, and you can see their language in parts of the opinion. This was a very scholarly analysis, many of the plaintiff's arguments were rejected by the court, and some very useful observations were made by the court. Plaintiffs threw everything they had at it, however, and one or two stuck. Defendants were not helped when the court caught them misquoting or partially quoting from other opinion language. Unfortunately, the Abramski holding (bad law from bad facts) is compounding the problem.

The opinion turns on an exception in the law, says there must be a reason for the exception, and re-opens the case for evidence to support or refute the claims that manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful acts by dealers. Those claims will require solid evidence to go anywhere, and many of the other arguments have been extinguished, so it is a mixed bag as with many in this arena. It is not, in my estimation, a conclusory or flippant ruling. Any criticism should be premised upon reading the entire opinion and discussing specific findings which are believed erroneous.
 
I've had a chance to read the opinion, though not study it. First be mindful that since this was on appeal from a case dismissed on the pleadings. the appellate court assumes that any plausible facts stated in the complaint are true.

The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) applied to foreign countries suing in the United States for injuries occurring in the foreign country. However it noted that PLCAA had some exceptions to the protections afforded gun makers, such as negligence, or violation of statutory law.

The Court then held that Mexico had met one of these exceptions (based on the pleadings). The Court cited a Supreme Court case as an analogy--a drug company aided and abetted a doctor distributing morphine because it sent huge amounts of drugs to the physician and gave him steep discounts despite being warned by federal authorities that the drugs were being abused. The First Circuit also rejected arguments that proximate cause had not been adequately pled and that the criminal acts of others were necessarily an intervening and superseding act (which would have resulted in dismissal).

I think Mexico still has a large evidentiary hill facing them. But if it gets to a jury, who can say? The suit wasn't filed in Massachusetts without reason.
 
rust collector said:
It is not, in my estimation, a conclusory or flippant ruling. Any criticism should be premised upon reading the entire opinion and discussing specific findings which are believed erroneous.
Click to expand...
See my Bottom Line clarification op cit in RED

KyJim said:
Court then held that Mexico had met one of these [PLCAA] exceptions (based on the pleadings).
Click to expand...
...had met, ....
--- OR ---
"...we. . .hold that Mexico's complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA's general prohibition.....

Big difference, if in fact.
 
Last edited:
MEHavey said:
rust collector said:
..... It is not, in my estimation, a conclusory or flippant ruling. Any criticism should be premised upon reading the entire opinion and discussing specific findings which are believed erroneous....
Click to expand...
See my Bottom Line clarification op cit in RED

...had met, .... or ...
"...we. . .hold that Mexico's complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA's general prohibition.....
Click to expand...

So?

The thing is, it helps if one understands the normal process of civil litigation. So I'll outline, in very broad terms and glossing over many details, how civil litigation works.

  • A lawsuit begins when someone, called the "plaintiff", files with an appropriate court a document called a "complaint." The complaint alleges certain facts (e. g., that certain things happened, that certain people did certain things, etc.) and that as a result of these facts the plaintiff has a legally recognized claim against someone, called the "defendant", on the basis of which claim the defendant has to do something (e. g., pay money to the plaintiff, stop doing something he is doing, or do something he isn't doing).

  • The plaintiff gives (serves) the defendant a copy of the filed complaint (there are rules about how this needs to be done). The defendant now has several options:

    1. The defendant can file with the court (and serve on the plaintiff) a motion to dismiss (MTD, called a "demurrer" in some States). The MTD says, essentially, that as a matter of law the plaintiff has no legally recognized claim, and the MTD includes a detailed legal argument as to why that's the case. The parties now argue the matter in court, and the judge makes a decision.

      • No evidence is presented in connection with a MTD. It is decided purely on legal grounds. For the purposes of deciding the MTD, each and every fact alleged in the complaint is assumed to be true. So basically, in the MTD the defendant asserts that even in everything the plaintiff has said is true, he has no claim against me; and he loses as a matter of law.

      • If the judge grants the MTD, the defendant wins and the plaintiff loses the lawsuit. The plaintiff can now appeal. (A judge can also dismiss the suit but allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint, but we won't go into all of that here.)

      • If the judge denies the MTD, the lawsuit continues, and the defendant goes on to the next step: the answer.

    2. If the defendant loses the MTD (or decides not to make an MTD) the defendant files with the court (an serves on the plaintiff) an answer to the lawsuit. The answer basically denies the allegations of the plaintiff.

  • Once the defendant has answered, the process called "discovery" can begin. This is a formal process of investigation subject to oversight by the court. Each party can require the other to answer questions (called "interrogatories") in writing and under oath. Parties can compel the production of documents. Depositions (the questioning of a person, under oath and with the answers being transcribed) can be taken.

  • After discovery, one party, or both parties, might decide to file a motion for summary judgment (MSJ).

    1. The basis of an MSJ is that there is no dispute as to the material facts and that, therefore, the court can decide the matter on the basis of those facts without the necessity of fact-finding by trial.

    2. An MSJ will be decided based upon documentation, e. g., transcripts of depositions, responses to interrogatories, documents produced during discovery, and affidavits, supporting the MSJ.

    3. If the judge finds that there is no dispute as to the facts, he (or she) can decide the case. But if there is a dispute, the case goes to trial.

  • At trial, each side presents evidence to prove its respective claims as to what the facts are. A trier-of-fact, either a jury or the judge, decides what the facts are based on that evidence, applies the law to the facts, and decides who wins and who loses. The loser can appeal on the basis of claimed errors of law made by the trial judge during the proceedings.

So what we're looking at here is a lawsuit at a very preliminary stage. The judge has apparently found that some of the factual claims of the complaint, which must be accepted as true at this point, get the suit outside the protections of the PCLAA.
 
I believe we are saying the same thing. This is a thinly disguised gun control lawsuit, was dismissed on the pleadings on the basis of the PLCAA, and the reviewing court determined that one exception existed that the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove. Consequently it goes back to district court for opportunity to submit evidence on that single exception.
 
MEHavey said:
The judge has found factual claims, or alleged claims . . . . ?

. . . or am I misinterpreting what I thought be claims, vice established fact ?
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't understand my outline of the civil litigation porcess.

The ruling comes in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant. The motion to dismiss tests whether the facts as alleged in the complaint are sufficient to state a legally recognized claim. At this stage, the judge must assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. If the complaint passes this test, the litigation continues. To win, the plaintiff must still prove that those facts are true.

In this case, the court concluded that the facts as alleged, and necessarily assumed to be true, supported some of the plaintiffs' theories of recovery, but didn't as a matter of law support others. So the case wil continue, but only with respect to those theories of recovery the court found supported by the facts as alleged in the complaint, and necessarily assumed to be true, but not the others.
 
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...everal-gun-manufacturers.927131/post-12816658

( ^ Frank Ettin's outline of civil case procedure posted above.)

Thank you ! Printed that out for safekeeping / reference / education.. Much appreciated.

I request permission to quote with full accreditation..

"Off" topic: As noted, additional sniping at U.S. gun rights by a new combatant enlisted by the very clever anti-gun factions, Gotta keep us busy with expensive lawsuits which we defend with "personal" dollars as opposed to government salaried dollars.

I say again: Accusations are cheap. Defense is expensive.

Terry, 230RN
 
Malik Graystone, "Navigating Legal Waters in Mexico’s Suit Against U.S. Gunmakers", The Stock Dork, 24 Jan 2024.
Points made include:
_ Mexico’s lawsuit alleges that U.S. gunmakers have intentionally enabled illegal gun trafficking into Mexico.
_ Mexico’s lawsuit claims the sunset of the U.S. 1994 Assault Weapon Ban in 2004 led to increased gun violence in Mexico.
_ Kostas Moros, California Rifle & Pistol Association, labeled Mexico’s arguments unrealistic, citing to Mexico’s high homicide rates before and during the 1994-2004 AWB experiment.
_ Twenty U.S. State Attorney Generals filed an amicus brief opposing Mexico’s lawsuit: they argue that the increase in Mexican homicide rates was not due to the sunset of the 1994 AWB but rather due to Mexico’s internal conflict with drug cartels. The AGs also contended only a minority of the guns found at Mexican crime scenes traced back to the US and many of those were U.S. guns sold to Mexican military and police and illegally diverted in Mexico to the cartels.
 
MEHavey said:
See my Bottom Line clarification op cit in RED


...had met, ....
--- OR ---
"...we. . .hold that Mexico's complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA's general prohibition.....

Big difference, if in fact.
Click to expand...
You have omitted part of that statement. The full sentence in post 8 said: "The Court then held that Mexico had met one of these exceptions (based on the pleadings)." In addition, the first paragraph of post 8 includes the sentence "First be mindful that since this was on appeal from a case dismissed on the pleadings, the appellate court assumes that any plausible facts stated in the complaint are true."

I see that you and Frank have discussed this, but I wanted to make it clear that I know what I'm talking about. I have practiced a lot of law at the appellate level---well over 500 cases.
 
Last edited:
KyJim said:
(quoting Frank): "...,since this was on appeal from a case dismissed on the pleadings, the appellate court assumes that any plausible facts stated in the complaint are true."
Click to expand...
As this is procedural -- as opposed to assumption of actual fact -- I cannot argue on that point.
( I do wish the word "plausible" hadn't been stuck in there though) :confused:
 
Last edited:
MEHavey said:
I'm an engineer.
Totally-different universe.
Significantly different logic.
Completely different language

I'm slow (but likely have a lot of company)
Thanks for bearing with me.
🥴
Click to expand...
I had a girlfriend long ago who was an attorney. Said the folks that had the worst time in law school were engineers. As she smiled at this engineer....

David
NM
 
I've found over the years that the legal system has its own brand of logic, and interestingly as an engineer I find that much of it does make sense.

A large chunk of what doesn't make apparent sense to me usually lies with the fact that I'm not nearly so well grounded in my understanding of the depth of the legal system as I am in my own field of engineering expertise.

The rest of my lack of understanding I chalk up to the fact that the legal system itself is not based on immutable laws of nature. It's based on human ideological concepts such as fairness, justice, mercy, etc., all things not evident in the universe at large.
 
MEHavey said:
Engineers expect/depend upon logic, clarity, reason, and truth.
(the alternatives result in products, roads, bridges and airplanes that end up in court)
Click to expand...
Precision v prolix prevarication.

"My 'yeah, but' trumps your 'yeah, but.' "

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Mexico has appealed the decision that effectively denied it exemption from PLCAA
Replies
3
Views
476
LiveLife
LiveLife
redcon1
  • Locked
13 States Back Mexican Gov’t’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Makers
Replies
4
Views
760
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
2
  • Locked
9th Circuit Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against Gun Industry
Replies
24
Views
854
mountainclmbr
M
O
  • Locked
U.S. Court Allows Lawsuit Against Gun Maker
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Wildalaska
W
C
  • Locked
New Jersey "Appellate court allows Newark to continue suit against gun manufacturers"
Replies
7
Views
727
geekWithA.45
G
Back
Top