The US Supreme Court rejected the demand of $ 10,000 million, filed by the Mexico government against the main manufacturers of the country’s weapons, which he accuses of his business practice in the violence and blood spills caused by cartels.
The decision adopted unanimously rejects the case by virtue of US laws, which largely protect manufacturers from civil liability weapons when their products are used in crimes.
Companies such as Smith & Wesson filed an appeal to the Supreme Court after the lower court allowed the lawsuit to follow its course, covering the applicable legal exception when the companies themselves accuse of violation of the law.
But on Thursday, the supreme judges examined that Mexico did not provide a plausible accusation of that the companies deliberately allowed to trade weapons to their territory.
“He does not indicate, since most of the requirements are presented with complicity, no specific criminal transaction in which the accused allegedly participated,” writes Magistrate Elena Kagan on behalf of the court.
The Mexico government filed this lawsuit against seven American weapons manufacturers, Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barrett Firearms Manoufacturing, Inc.; Beretta USA Corp.; Century International Arms, Inc.; COLTS ManUFACTURING Company, LLC; Gock, Inc. and Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
The lawsuit also mentions how the weapon distributor is accused – Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., which works under the commercial name of interstate weapons.
At his request, Mexico claimed that the companies helped and provoked illegal sales that sent weapons to Mexican drug carters. “The question that has arisen is whether the requirement submitted by Mexico is believable is believable. We came to the conclusion that this is not so, ”says the Supreme USA.
“The Law on the Protection of the Legal Trade of Weapons (PLCAA) prohibits certain types of requirements against manufacturers and sellers of firearms. Congress published this law in response to a series of trials that were tried to keep in armament for harmful companies for damage ”, caused by the inappropriate use of firearms by third parties, including criminal, do not explain that“ Printerial conditions ”. The civil procedure “against the manufacturer or seller of weapons can be filed for” criminal or illegal use “of firearms on the third party.”
“However,” explains the highest, ”“ PLCAA contains an exception to this general rule, which allows the requirements in which the manufacturer or seller deliberately violates the state or federal law applicable to the sale or commercialization of “firearms”, and that the indicated violation was “close causes of claimed damage. And that this violation directly caused damage that the requirement can move, even if it causes use, using it if it causes use.
The decision states that Mexico suffers from a serious problem of armed violence, which his government considers north of its border. There is one weapons store in the country and provides less than 50 permits per year. Nevertheless, people traders can buy weapons in the United States – often as a result of illegal transactions – and deliver them to drug cartels in Mexico. These organizations use imported weapons to commit serious crimes: drug trafficking, abduction, murder and others. According to the Mexican government, up to 90% of the weapons found in the scenes of crime in Mexico come from the United States.
The main argument of Mexico is that manufacturers supply weapons to retail sellers who know that they sell illegally through Mexican traders. Demand explains that manufacturers use the distribution system at three levels: they sell wholesale distributors, who, in turn, sell to retailers who sell the final client.
The “small minority” of these retailers is responsible for most sales of Mexican merchants of merchants; And these sales often violate federal laws on weapons – for example, by attracting testing buyers or when the right control is missed.
“It is even more important,” says the Supreme, “claims demand,“ and this is the key to the fact that manufacturers know their problem suppliers. However, manufacturers continue to supply weapons to those suppliers, just like legal ones, to increase their advantages. Without reducing the supply of weapons for retail sellers who know that they are infra -infected, the requirement adheres to the fact that manufacturers are becoming obligatory and responsible participants, ”become mandatory, become mandatory and responsible participants,” who become mandatory.
Nevertheless, the United States Supreme states that “Mexico’s demand does not determine any specific transaction in which the accused cooperate. He does not say, for example, that the manufacturer helped a specific seller at a certain time and place to sell weapons to a specific trading of people who could not legally purchase them. Instead, he represents more general accusations that in many respects, according to the consciousness, it is that in many sales it is that the will of the knowledge of the Consciousness is that in many sales consists in consists in a consist of consciousness. Consciousness in essence. Conscious sales. legal violation and caused damage.
According to Supreme, “Mexico demand is very similar to those whom Congress wanted to avoid: he intends to compensate for American manufacturers for damage caused by Mexican cartels. It is true that the law contains the predicate, but if in accordance with it the requirement of Mexico was recognized that the exclusion will ultimately be in abolition when the plaintiffs imagine that in activation in activation in activation in activation in activation in activation in activation in the activation in the activation in the activation activation in activation in activation in activation in activation in activation in activation in activation.