"PLCAA is not going to be an issue for us,"

[AndyS]

said Steve Shadowen, the lead attorney for the Mexican government. “We had enough confidence in our claims to say we’ll litigate them in [the gun industry’s] home court.”

According to the lawsuit, more than 180,000 people were killed with guns in Mexico between 2007 and 2019. More than 70 percent of all firearms recovered in violent crimes originated in the U.S.

The lawsuit names seven American gunmakers and one distributor as defendants: Smith & Wesson; Beretta; Glock; Colt; Sturm Ruger; Barrett; Century Arms; and Interstate Arms.

https://www.thetrace.org/2021/08/mexico-gun-companies-plcca-lawsuit/

The Mexican government is suing US gun makers for failing to control their distribution and feeding gun trafficking into their country. The PLCAA has protected gun makers from civil litigation for almost every possible misuse of or distribution of guns.

Mexico's lawyers argue that Congress only intended the PLCAA protections to apply inside U.S. borders. Since Mexico’s suit deals with injuries to Mexican citizens on Mexican soil caused by violations of Mexican law, PLCAA does not apply. Legal voices disagree over the validity of the suit's premise and protections offered by the PLCAA but this has a 50:50 chance of being a winning strategy. Time will tell.

Bottom line is that we need to get rid of the PLCAA which affords protections to gun makers and sellers that NO OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT ENJOYS.

[SYFROYH]

1. If its true MEX is suing "for failing to control their distribution" then thats what PLCAA protects

...against as long as the sale from the manufacturer to the distributor was lawful, the sale from the distributor to the dealer was lawful, or the sale from the dealer to the customer was lawful.

Gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers can be sued under PLCAA, but not for following the law. Gun sales follow rules MOST OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW.

In a previous article, they were hanging their hat on a pistol coated in a golden color and said it was marketed to gangsters.

lol. Good luck with that.

[AndyS]

2. That was cited as a single example of marketing aimed at Cartel leadership.

I'm not surprised that your blinders missed that blatant fact.

lol over 180,000 Mexican deaths in 12 years? Thanks for posting this incredibly insensitive comment. It's important for DU to see the true side of gunners.

[SYFROYH]

3. I chuckled over their best example of marketing to cartels.

I'm not surprised that you tried to make it about something else.

[AndyS]

4. Gun sales follow rules MOST OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW.

Can't let this one go either. There are NO rules for gun making. Gun manufacturing hasn't changed since the mid 1800s. There are no requirements for a mechanical safety device on guns made for consumer sale. NONE unless it's an RFQ for a military procurement. I find it endlessly ironic that the organization that has at it's basest job description ''tearing things up and killing people'' requires more safety devices than are sold to anyone in the general public.

What 'requirements' placed on gun makers aren't enforced or are so archaic by law that they can't be used.

Take your nonsense back to the gungeon where it will be appreciated.

If you wish to contribute to this thread please keep comments to the content of the OP and not gunner talking points.

[NickB79]

5. But gun makers have been sued successfully over safety failures

The PLCAA doesn't protect gun makers from those kinds of lawsuits.

Remington is still dealing with the lawsuit from 2014.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/06/remington-trigger-problems-surface-as-class-action-settlement-deadline-nears.html

[AndyS]

6. Please address the OP and not some gunner talking point. nt