Gun News

Remember the lawsuit Mexico filed against American gun manufacturers> They got blown out  of the water at the Supreme Court on a unanimous decision – one would think given the expense of taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court, that particular bloody nose would have talked them they were backing the wrong pony.  Not really – their American anti-gun lawyers are helping them with a different angle – sue individual Arizona retailers.

Defendants moved to dismiss the case in February 2024, arguing Mexico lacked standing and that the PLCAA barred the case.

Mexico’s lawyers, however, rejected the argument the PLCAA bars their claims against the firearm retailers, arguing the stores have the “opportunity and obligation” to stop the sales of firearms likely to be illegally trafficked to Mexico.

Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Marquez allowed the case to move forward, although she granted dismissal of claims the stores violated Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as a public nuisance claim.

Bet there’s a bit of judicial activism involved here.

The Tucson Sentinel reported in March 2024, “She rejected the claim that PLCAA protects the stores from the suit, and ruled that arguments the five stores are negligent could move forward. In her ruling, Marquez wrote she was ‘unconvinced’ by arguments the 2nd Amendment and state law ‘negate recognizing a duty of care here.’”

Respectfully, the court is wrong. Congress, in enacting the PLCAA, preempted generalized negligence claims, only allowing claims that fit within the law’s narrowly drafted exceptions.

In the Arizona lawsuit, Judge Marquez previously rejected the retailer defendants’ argument that the PLCAA bars Mexico’s similarly amorphous claim that the retailers “systematically violated” a litany of legal obligations relating to “straw sales” without alleging that they violated any specific laws. Rather, the court (incorrectly) accepted the narrative that Mexico weaved together, describing a web of “red flags” indicating that the retailers knew or should have known that the firearms they sold would ultimately end up in criminal hands in Mexico. And one of these “red flags” cited by the court was the “repeat sales of military-style weapons favored by Mexican cartels.” Buckeye Firearms

“Repeat sales of military-style” means they sold ARs and AKs (OK, maybe some FNs) – got some bad news, by now there are so many styles and calibers, any decently representative collector would have literally hundreds of weapons if he were so minded.

Of course, they do have at least some basis for their suit – they are just suing the wrong defendants. They should be suing Obama and Holder.

Somewhat cheerful news – HB 1, Trumps ‘big beautiful spending bill’ has a welcome provision to change the status of suppressors from the NFA category to merely being regulated like guns – background check recorded at point of purchase. We talked baout that before – every suppressor hits the buyer with a $200 tax, and that is gone too. We talked before that this had to survive the Senate , and apparently it has so far – but anti-gun Senators are lying at the top of their voices. Quelle surprise.

Gun control lawmakers are cranking up the volume on their opposition to removing onerous regulations on suppressors — and the rhetoric is astoundingly without merit. Put another way, it lacks facts. Or more bluntly, these politicians are straight out lying.

First up, Chris Murphy (D-CT):

He followed that up by also posting a speech, saying “silencers” will allow murderers to commit crimes in secret, claiming the firearm report would be completely silenced, “Silencers are the tools of killers, they are the tools of criminals, period, stop.”

Then there is Chuckie Schumer (D, NY):

Who wants a silencer? Not the average citizen,” Sen. Schumer said in a speech. “They’re law-abiding. Not our police officers. They’re against these provisions that allow anyone to get a silencer. The only people who want silencers are criminals because they don’t want people to hear their bad, horrible, deadly deeds.”

Over 3.1 million silencers in public hands, and from what I read literally a handful of criminal misuses of them – like ‘way less than ‘.01%.

And then there is Gabby Gifford’s lying husband, Mark Kelly:

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) claimed that suppressors would effectively negate “ShotSpotter” gunfire detection systems used by law enforcement in cities to triangulate gunfire for responding police.

“These silencers circumvent that system,” Sen. Kelly argued. “That system will no longer be effective when a gunman has a silencer.”

That’s just untrue. Sen. Kelly knows better, but he doesn’t let facts — or ShotSpotter’s own fact sheets — get in the way of his gun control narrative.  Buckeye Firearms II

Might screw up Kelly’s narrative if he checked and found that Shot Spotter CEO Raph Clark dismissed these concerns in 2017 in a Washington Post column.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns