{"id":170743,"date":"2025-06-19T07:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-06-19T11:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=170743"},"modified":"2025-06-18T21:43:02","modified_gmt":"2025-06-19T01:43:02","slug":"gun-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=170743","title":{"rendered":"Gun News"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Remember the lawsuit Mexico filed against American gun manufacturers> They got blown out\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Not really – their American anti-gun lawyers are helping them with a different angle – sue individual Arizona retailers.<\/p>\n

Defendants moved to dismiss the case in February 2024, arguing Mexico lacked standing and that the PLCAA barred the case.<\/p>\n

Mexico\u2019s lawyers, however, rejected the argument the PLCAA bars their claims against the firearm retailers, arguing the stores have the \u201copportunity and obligation\u201d to stop the sales of firearms likely to be illegally trafficked to Mexico.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s Consumer Fraud Act and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as a public nuisance claim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bet there’s a bit of judicial activism involved here.<\/p>\n

The Tucson Sentinel reported in March 2024, \u201cShe 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 \u2018unconvinced\u2019 by arguments the 2nd Amendment and state law \u2018negate recognizing a duty of care here.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Respectfully, the court is wrong. Congress, in enacting the PLCAA, preempted generalized negligence claims, only allowing claims that fit within the law\u2019s narrowly drafted exceptions.<\/p>\n

In the Arizona lawsuit, Judge Marquez previously rejected the retailer defendants\u2019 argument that the PLCAA bars Mexico\u2019s similarly amorphous claim that the retailers \u201csystematically violated\u201d a litany of legal obligations relating to \u201cstraw sales\u201d without alleging that they violated any specific laws. Rather, the court (incorrectly) accepted the narrative that Mexico weaved together, describing a web of \u201cred flags\u201d 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 \u201cred flags\u201d cited by the court was the \u201crepeat sales of military-style weapons favored by Mexican cartels.\u201d\u00a0Buckeye Firearms<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Gun control lawmakers are cranking up the volume on their opposition to removing onerous regulations on suppressors \u2014 and the rhetoric is astoundingly without merit. Put another way, it lacks facts. Or more bluntly, these politicians are straight out lying.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

First up, Chris Murphy (D-CT):<\/p>\n

He followed that up by also posting a speech, saying \u201csilencers\u201d will allow murderers to commit crimes in secret, claiming the firearm report would be completely silenced, \u201cSilencers are the tools of killers, they are the tools of criminals, period, stop.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Then there is Chuckie Schumer (D, NY):<\/p>\n

Who wants a silencer? Not the average citizen,\u201d Sen. Schumer said in a speech. \u201cThey\u2019re law-abiding. Not our police officers. They\u2019re against these provisions that allow anyone to get a silencer. The only people who want silencers are criminals because they don\u2019t want people to hear their bad, horrible, deadly deeds.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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%.<\/p>\n

And then there is Gabby Gifford’s lying husband, Mark Kelly:<\/p>\n

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) claimed that suppressors would effectively negate \u201cShotSpotter\u201d gunfire detection systems used by law enforcement in cities to triangulate gunfire for responding police.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese silencers circumvent that system,\u201d Sen. Kelly argued. \u201cThat system will no longer be effective when a gunman has a silencer.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s just untrue. Sen. Kelly knows better, but he doesn\u2019t let facts \u2014 or ShotSpotter\u2019s own fact sheets \u2014 get in the way of his gun control narrative.\u00a0\u00a0Buckeye Firearms II<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Remember the lawsuit Mexico filed against American gun manufacturers> They got blown out\u00a0 of the water … Gun News<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":668,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[82,156],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gun-grabbing-fascists","category-guns"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170743","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/668"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=170743"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170743\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":170744,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170743\/revisions\/170744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=170743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=170743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=170743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}