Summary
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit brought by Mexico seeking to hold U.S. gun companies liable for firearm trafficking that fuels cartel violence.
Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not shield gunmakers who knowingly facilitate illegal sales.
Lower courts disagreed on whether the “predicate exception” applies, prompting the Supreme Court to step in.
If the ruling favors Mexico, it could open legal avenues for similar suits. Gunmakers contend Mexico’s claims fail due to multiple intervening steps before guns reach cartels.
Interesting history lesson.
So, is your stance that a leftwing armed resistance movement shooting CEOs wouldn’t cause the right-wing gun lobby to support gun control like they used to?
No group is a monolith, especially groups numbering in the tens of millions, so of course some number of right-wing gun owners would suddenly swing to supporting gun control however those folks would be in the minority. I simply can’t foresee the majority of right-wing gun owners suddenly regaining their appetite for gun control in anything less than literal decades.
With that answered what about the left-wing anti-gun lobby? Since essentially every politician to the the left of US Representative Brian Fitzpatrick has been on a decades long crusade for ever increasing gun control how would they react to more CEO shootings?
What the rank and file gun owners want seems kind of irrelevant, I think the ones who actually write and pass laws will disregard whatever they think to protect their own interests.
There is no significant left wing in the US.
The liberal antigun lobby would go insane, of course, but it’s not like they’d change any of their positions. They’d still want stricter gun control regardless of the material reality.
That an interesting viewpoint given the decades those rank and file gun owners have spent fighting an uphill battle to forestall new gun control measures while getting old ones rolled back. They’ve done a phenomenal job of forcing lawmakers to bend to their will.
It’s sort of the point of my NRA history lesson. When gun owners decided they wouldn’t tolerate any more shenanigans in their name they literally overthrew the most powerful pro gun lobby in existence and then used it to bludgeon law makers into doing what they wanted. That’s about as much political power as any group of regular people can ever hope to have.
I doubt the majority of that group is going to allow themselves to be silenced over a few CEOs getting popped.
NRA leadership, and thus its agenda, is mostly determined by the firearms industry and large donors. Sure they have elections (where something like 7% of members vote), but board directors are basically just chosen by the nominating committee which is itself partially directly appointed by industry without election and the elected members of the committee have ties to the industry.
They’re all also quite wealthy.
It’s not gun owners that actually decide NRA policy, it’s manufacturers and retailers and rich enthusiasts. If rich people were suddenly concerned about leftists gunning them down in the streets they’d change their stances on gun control real quick.