Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a past leader of Mexico, left in October, but his laws still harm the country. Years will pass as a result of the unobstructed flow of human and drug smuggling across our borders.
His administration’s lawsuit pending before the U. S. Supreme Court, Smith &, Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, was even destroy our libel laws structure and damage American companies. It attempts to chastise American gun manufacturers and distributors for the harm Latino criminals in Mexico have caused.
Mexico’s lawsuit alleges that some firearms firms are “deliberate and eager members ]in criminal operations], reaping income from the legal business they knowingly source”. Mexico requested$ 10 billion in damages for “willfully blind, standardless distribution practices” that result in the small ( 2.2 % ) of American firearms being smuggled across the southern border and used by the cartels.
The legal theories that underlie the case against the remaining defendants may cause more tort claims to be filed in some American industries, even though several defendants have already been removed on legal grounds. Mexico had expand causal causation to wide foreseeability. Additionally, it would provide a business with the justification for a liability claim that it “aid and abetting” those poor performers by knowing that its goods are being abused by third parties.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ( PLCAA ) of 2005 explicitly protects American firearms manufacturers and dealers, making the situation even more untenable. The law forbids complaints against firearms manufacturers because of their product’s improper use. Following lawsuits brought by local governments in the United States to carry weapons companies accountable for group crime, this law was passed.
This incident is a result of former President López Obrador’s long history of bad-faith ties to U.S.-Mexico border politics, even if it is used as a political tool to express his frustration with the British weapons market. Along with westbound weapons and currency trafficking, northern human and drug smuggling has long been a source of trafficking along our southern border.
López Obrador, nevertheless, spent the six decades of his name scorning cross-national work and shirking Mexico’s position in stopping organizations from exporting morphine. He often expressed hatred for U. S. government requests to boost action against the cartels, telling U. S. Homeland Security Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall,” These, we do not make fentanyl, and we do not include usage of fentanyl”. Although this is false on both counts, it demonstrates how his administration responded to the problem of illicit opioid use, suggesting that Americans address” their problem of social decay” instead.
It is absurd to assume that Americans are entirely to blame for our opioid epidemic while gun manufacturers owe Mexico billions of dollars as a result of the country’s epidemic of gun violence. However, it is a peculiar pattern of Lopez Obrador’s public statements and actions that appeared to be interfering with the cartels.
López Obrador made six official visits as president to Joaquín” El Chapo” Guzmán’s rural hometown of Badiraguato. During one of these, he met and shook hands with Guzmán’s mother. That sparked a frenzy among Mexican opposition figures. He followed this up with perplexing assertions that cartel members “respect the citizenry” of Mexico earlier this year.
This contrasts poorly with the ominous case of cartel violence against people in Mexico’s lawsuit. Additionally, the situation and case are more improbable given cartel investigations in the United States that suggest López Obrador’s first presidential campaign were funded by about$ 2 million.
Near the end of his presidency, López Obrador filed this lawsuit against American gun manufacturers. It might provide some protection from his legacy of subpar domestic public safety.
He declared Mexico” a pacifist country” and called for the country’s military to be disband in response to the cartels ‘ brutal violence. This ideology was at the center of his “hugs, not gunshots” campaign to go after the alleged root causes of organized crime, like poverty and unemployment.
The result? One of the most deadly periods in modern democracy’s history was likely led by López Obrador, who’s murder rate more than tripled since only three administrations in a row.
Working together to combat gun and drug trafficking efforts would benefit both the United States and Mexico. However, this lawsuit is merely a flimsy way to cover Mexico’s inaction. The Supreme Court should reject Mexico’s case, which is exactly the kind of lawsuit that the PLCAA was intended to stop.
Landmark Legal Foundation’s executive vice president is Matthew Forys.
