Latest news with #inArmsAct
10-07-2025
- Business
Gun makers lose appeal of New York law that could make them liable for shootings
NEW YORK -- A New York state law holding gun manufacturers potentially liable when their weapons are used in deadly shootings was upheld Thursday by a federal appeals court. The ruling Thursday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan affirmed a decision by an Albany judge. A three-judge appeals panel said the 2021 New York state law was not unconstitutional or vague. The opinion written by Circuit Judge Eunice C. Lee said a lawsuit seeking to stop the law's implementation did not show that the law was 'unenforceable in all its applications.' The law requires the gun industry to create reasonable controls to prevent unlawful possession, use, marketing or sale of their products in New York and allows them to be sued for unlawful acts that create or contribute to threats to public health or safety. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association of firearms manufacturers that ships firearms into New York, had sued over the law, saying it was pre-empted by the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which blocks litigation that could destroy the firearms industry. In May 2022, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino threw out the lawsuit, rejecting arguments that the law's language did not adequately explain what was prohibited. She said the law closely tracked the language of New York's general public nuisance law, which has been 'good law since 1965.' Lawyers for the gun manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Eric Tirschwell, executive director of the nonprofit Everytown Law, praised the ruling. He said the law creates 'a new pathway for victims and their families to hold bad actors in the gun industry accountable for their role in fueling the epidemic of gun violence that is ravaging communities across the Empire State.' Everytown Law and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence were among gun violence protection groups that filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the new law 'simply does not create the free-for-all' that gun makers predicted. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs concurred in the ruling, despite some reservations. He wrote that New York had 'contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to 'gun industry members' and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors.' And he added: 'The intent of Congress when it closes a door is not for States to thus jimmy a window.' Jacobs, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, said he agrees with the other two judges on the panel that the law could be applied consistent with the federal law and the U.S. Constitution. But he also wrote that the New York gun law is 'nothing short of an attempt to end-run' the federal law, noting that then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo said when he signed it that it would 'right the wrong' done by the federal law. 'There is some legitimate reach to the law, which suffices for us to affirm the dismissal of this facial challenge. Just how limited that reach is must await future cases,' Jacobs said.
Winnipeg Free Press
10-07-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Gun makers lose appeal of New York law that could make them liable for shootings
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York state law holding gun manufacturers potentially liable when their weapons are used in deadly shootings was upheld Thursday by a federal appeals court. The ruling Thursday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan affirmed a decision by an Albany judge. A three-judge appeals panel said the 2021 New York state law was not unconstitutional or vague. The opinion written by Circuit Judge Eunice C. Lee said a lawsuit seeking to stop the law's implementation did not show that the law was 'unenforceable in all its applications.' The law requires the gun industry to create reasonable controls to prevent unlawful possession, use, marketing or sale of their products in New York and allows them to be sued for unlawful acts that create or contribute to threats to public health or safety. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association of firearms manufacturers that ships firearms into New York, had sued over the law, saying it was pre-empted by the federal 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which blocks litigation that could destroy the firearms industry. In May 2022, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino threw out the lawsuit, rejecting arguments that the law's language did not adequately explain what was prohibited. She said the law closely tracked the language of New York's general public nuisance law, which has been 'good law since 1965.' Lawyers for the gun manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Eric Tirschwell, executive director of the nonprofit Everytown Law, praised the ruling. He said the law creates 'a new pathway for victims and their families to hold bad actors in the gun industry accountable for their role in fueling the epidemic of gun violence that is ravaging communities across the Empire State.' Everytown Law and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence were among gun violence protection groups that filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the new law 'simply does not create the free-for-all' that gun makers predicted. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs concurred in the ruling, despite some reservations. He wrote that New York had 'contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to 'gun industry members' and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors.' And he added: 'The intent of Congress when it closes a door is not for States to thus jimmy a window.' Jacobs, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, said he agrees with the other two judges on the panel that the law could be applied consistent with the federal law and the U.S. Constitution. But he also wrote that the New York gun law is 'nothing short of an attempt to end-run' the federal law, noting that then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo said when he signed it that it would 'right the wrong' done by the federal law. 'There is some legitimate reach to the law, which suffices for us to affirm the dismissal of this facial challenge. Just how limited that reach is must await future cases,' Jacobs said.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence
In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, he Supreme Court shut down Mexicos $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit. Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund. The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturers alleged failure to exercise "reasonable care" does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for "aiding and abetting" the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico. Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief "would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturers products" within the United States. A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court. The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexicos lawyers sought to invoke. The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans "have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border." It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies "are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply." In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit "faults the defendants for producing common firearms" and for "failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens." They made the case that "aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally." Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning. In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was "inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters." According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country. The unanimous decision marks the first ruling by the Supreme Court where the PLCAA is cited and could serve as precedent for protecting weapons manufacturers in future cases. The 9-0 ruling suggests strong judicial consensus on the limits of civil liability for gun manufacturers under federal law. It is seen as a win by gun rights activists, with the NRA arguing in their amicus brief on the case that "Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish Americas." Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each issued concurring opinions, with Jackson writing that Mexicos lawsuit targeted industry-wide practices that Congress has chosen not to prohibit and Thomas arguing that violations of U.S. law must be established in court for the PLCAA exceptions to be valid. James Eustis is an intern at RealClearPolitics. He studies politics at Washington & Lee University.
The Herald Scotland
06-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence
"An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico's, it is founded on a third-party's criminal use of the company's product," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. The decision landed against a backdrop of strained diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico. President Donald Trump wants Mexico to do more to stop illegal drugs from flowing into the United States and Mexico wants to stop illegal arms from flowing south. Mexico has maintained tighter regulations on firearms than its neighbor to the north. The case was also the first time the Supreme Court ruled on a 2005 law that shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed by third parties. An exception in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act allows suits if a gunmaker is accused of knowingly violating a state or federal law. Attorneys representing Mexico argued that gun companies are "aiding and abetting" the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of high-powered firearms into Mexico through deliberate design, marketing and distribution choices. That includes doing business with dealers who repeatedly sell large quantities of guns to cartel traffickers, Mexico's counsel alleged. Firearms makers, led by Smith & Wesson Brands, said the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes after being sold, transported, and used to commit crime in Mexico involves too many steps to blame the industry. Guns made in the United States are sold to federally licensed distributors who sell them to federally licensed dealers - some of whom knowingly or negligently sell them to criminals who smuggle them into Mexico, where they end up in the hands of cartel members. Mexico's attorneys stressed that the suit was in its early stages and said Mexico should be allowed a chance to prove its allegations in court. A federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed the suit, ruling it was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the challenge met an exception in the law and could move forward. Mexico, it said, had adequately alleged the gunmakers "aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico." Mexico was seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages, estimated in the range of $10 billion, and a court order requiring gun companies to change their practices. Lawyers for gun rights groups told the Supreme Court that Mexico's suit is an attempt to bankrupt the American firearms industry and undermine the Second Amendment. Gun violence prevention groups worried the case could make it harder to bring domestic lawsuits against the gun industry. The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Axios
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers
The Supreme Court rejected on Thursday Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun makers that alleged the companies' loose controls allowed for the weapons to be illegally trafficked in the Latin American nation. Why it matters: The unanimous ruling ends a years long legal battle in the first-of-its kind suit that saw the Mexican government try to hold U.S. gunmakers accountable for drug cartels' high rates of gun violence in parts of the country. State of play The Supreme Court ruled that the six gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson and Glock, and a distributor were shielded under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Congress enacted this law in 2005 "to halt lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for harms resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms," wrote Justice Elena Kagan. "In asserting that the manufacturers intentionally supply guns to bad-apple dealers, Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise." Kagan said the Mexican government had not pinpointed, "as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants" were alleged to have assisted." What they're saying: Smith & Wesson in a statement Thursday called the ruling a" big win for Smith & Wesson," the weapons industry, "American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights." The company added, "This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an afront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans." The other side: Mexico's Foreign Ministry said in a statement it "strongly disagrees" with the Supreme Court's decision and it will continue to do "everything in its power to curb illicit arms trafficking, exhausting all available legal and diplomatic remedies."
