The government of Mexico is suing U.S. gun-makers for their role in facilitating cross-border gun trafficking that has supercharged violent crime in Mexico.
The lawsuit seeks US$10 billion in damages and a court order to force the companies named in the lawsuit – including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock, Beretta and Ruger – to change the way they do business. In January, a federal appeals court in Boston decided that the industry’s immunity shield, which so far has protected gun-makers from civil liability, does not apply to Mexico’s lawsuit.
As a legal scholar who has analyzed lawsuits against the gun industry for more than 25 years, I believe this decision to allow Mexico’s lawsuit to proceed could be a game changer. To understand why, let’s begin with some background about the federal law that protects the gun industry from civil lawsuits.
Exactly. Most people seem to be worried about things that are non-issues, and completely ignore things that are.
For example, private sales are legal in many parts of the country, and those often don't require any paperwork to be submitted (though I think records of sale need to be kept). If you work selling guns, you're not allowed to do private sales whatsoever, so that's a non-issue as well. But if you just own guns, you may sell them person to person legally in enough states to matter.
And that's where I think we need reform. All gun sales should go through either a firearm dealer or the local police, since those are the groups capable of doing the necessary checks. Those should have a nominal fee attached, but nothing so high as to encourage black market sales. I also think all gun buyers should be required to prove that they've done a gun safety course somewhat recently.
But gun reform advocates blame manufacturers and retailers, yet they're not the causes of the problems we're seeing.