New Mexico isn’t a state that seems concerned with legality when it comes to guns. Let’s not forget that this is a state whose governor thought she could suspend the Second Amendment entirely in the city of Albuquerque under the guise of violent crime being a “public health crisis.” Sure, she got pushback from inside the state, including from her own party, but she certainly tried and still did a lot of damage to people’s rights as it was.
But now the legislature is trying something that, frankly, I don’t see how it can even be remotely legal.
They’re trying to go around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Anti-hunting and anti-gun New Mexico Senator Joseph Cervantes has introduced Senate Bill 318, the only purpose of which is to financially cripple the firearms industry from stem to stern.
Tomorrow, March 12, at 1 p.m., in room 321, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hear Senate Bill 318, which creates a special cause of action for the Attorney General and even private persons “likely” to be damaged and to hold firearms manufacturers, distributors, and online marketplaces jointly liable for the violent acts of third parties, with severe penalties of $250,000 per violation.
…
New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act is supposed to protect consumers and businesses from unfair and deceptive trade practices. Sadly, SB 318 removes that protection from manufacturers, distributors, and online marketplaces of firearms, parts, and accessories when their lawful product is used in the criminal act of a third party. The bill does not stop there. It allows a private person only likely damaged by these businesses, and the Attorney General only needs the reasonable belief that these businesses have caused damages to bring forward a civil lawsuit.
Now, the way this tries to get around the PLCAA is by taking the form of a consumer protection law, which targets things like marketing of firearms. It seems, based on my reading, that where we could see a major problem is that the bill is with the idea of “proximate cause.” This is a legal term where someone is held responsible for an act that they should have reasonably foreseen would be the result of their action. For example, serving a drink to someone who is already drunk and has their keys in their hands could be considered proximate cause for the DUI crash the drinker has later that night.
As we saw with Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson, the argument is that any gun sale is proximate cause for all violent crimes committed by others in some people’s minds.
And considering New Mexico’s state Supreme Court, I’m not confident they won’t allow such lawsuits to advance.
But this is still a violation of the PLCAA. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is still a thing, and this attempted end-around it shouldn’t be remotely legal. Especially in light of where it looks like the U.S. Supreme Court is heading on the issue of proximate cause, among other things.
And I’m sure there’s a ton of legal nuance I’m missing here.
Either way, trying to hold the firearm industry accountable for violent crime is ridiculous. They’re not selling to individuals directly in most cases, nor are they selling directly to gun stores. They also don’t have tracing data that would even let them decline to sell to a store because of a history of guns sold there ending up in criminal hands.
And the few guns they do sell directly all go through a licensed gun dealer, meaning they’re not going to criminals in the first place.
Blaming them for things beyond their control isn’t just stupid, it’s evil. Especially when we know what the endgame in all of this actually is, which is to bankrupt the entire industry.
Read the full article here
