The last time the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on any Second Amendment-related issue was back in 2016, when the justices issued a per curium opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts affirming that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't just apply to arms that were around in 1791, but includes modern-day arms as well. 

After Tuesday's oral arguments in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, I'd say there's a very good chance that we'll get another 9-0 decision benefitting gun owners and the firearms industry later this year, and I'd be downright shocked if Mexico is allowed to continue its $10 billion lawsuit against gun makers seeking to hold them accountable for the cartel violence south of the border. Instead, the Court seems poised to rule that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precludes the type of junk lawsuit filed by Mexico and U.S. gun control activists, and even justices like Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson displayed plenty of skepticism about Mexico's arguments in favor of letting the lawsuit proceed.

My colleague Tom Knighton covered the oral arguments and the skepticism towards Mexico's arguments that was heard from both the conservative and liberal wings of the Court on Tuesday, but now we're getting a little reaction from the gun control lobby... and those anti-gunners who are willing to talk about the oral arguments don't sound too happy about what they heard. 

A group of gun violence prevention organizations warned the Supreme Court that accepting the gun manufacturers' argument would have devastating consequences.

"It would be a signal that our law doesn't appropriately contemplate or even respect the suffering of victims of gun violence, the harm they suffered, the lives lost, the lives changed forever," said David Pucino, deputy chief counsel and legal director at Giffords Law Center. "And it would further suggest an impunity for one particular industry in our country." 

Giffords is one of several gun violence prevention groups that submitted a friend-of-the-court brief backing Mexico in the case. 

"They're trying to take the existing federal immunity statute and dramatically expand its reach because the statute was written and passed with an exception that prevents law-breakers from claiming immunity," he said. "The restrictions do not apply when the plaintiffs can trace the harm they suffered to a violation of state or federal law."

Except that, as a couple of the justices pointed out, Mexico can't point to any specific violation of state or federal law committed by the gun makers they're suing. Instead, their theory rests on the implausible argument that because these companies know that some small portion of their products will be illegally trafficked across the border and used in cartel crimes, those companies are aiding and abetting the cartels and are a proximate cause of the cartel violence. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged that Mexico couldn't point to any specific laws allegedly broken by the gun makers, and she's hardly been a friend to Second Amendment supporters in her time on the bench. 

Most of the major control groups, on the other hand, have refused to publicly acknowledge the oral arguments at all. Everytown, Giffords, and Brady haven't posted a single thing about the oral arguments on their X accounts, though they were all paying attention to Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. The fact that these organizations are maintaining radio silence is evidence that they understand full well what a disaster Smith & Wesson v. Mexico will be for their disarmament agenda, as well as the likelihood of the Supreme Court saying "adios" to Mexico's attempt to sue the firearms industry into oblivion.