Well-intentioned advocates for gun control have in recent years tried to use the courts creatively to bankrupt firearms manufacturers. The clearest illustration of this is a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the government of Mexico, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which alleges that seven leaders in the industry willfully fueled cartel violence south of the border, and demands court-mandated safety requirements around the marketing and distribution of guns. 

During oral arguments last week, all nine justices sounded dubious. Essentially, Mexico wants the court to legislate from the bench by substituting its own judgment for a law that Congress passed 20 years ago, which was plainly intended to thwart just this kind of litigation. Regardless of how much people loathe guns, they must accept the authority of valid laws.

Despite describing advocates for gun control as "well-intentioned" and being sure to note the loathing that some people (including, I'm guessing, a majority of the paper's subscribers) have for firearms, the editors did pen some phrases that I never would have expected to see in an official editorial from the Washington Post. The editors describe the First Circuit Court of Appeals decision to revive Mexico's lawsuit after it was thrown out by a district court judge as "lamentable judicial activism," for instance, and noted that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed twenty years ago to "protect American gunmakers from going out of business amid a tsunami of lawsuits filed by shooting victims, as well as state and local governments, including the cities of Boston and Chicago."

In the past, the law would probably have been described by the paper's editors as a way of "shielding gun makers from their responsibility for the harm caused by their products", and Mexico's lawsuit would likely have been hailed as an unconventional approach to holding the firearms industry responsible for damage done by guns (with no mention of the responsibility of the criminals themselves). 

To be fair, this particular editorial is leans more on Bezos's desire to promote the free market than personal liberties. The editors make no mention of the harms done to our Second Amendment rights if Mexico were to prevail; instead choosing to focus on the flood of litigation against other industries that we're likely to see if SCOTUS allows Mexico's lawsuit to move forward.

Imagine if beer companies became liable for selling large quantities of their product in college towns. Under Mexico’s theory of the case, these companies could foresee that underage people would wind up drinking their product, so they’d be responsible for any trouble they got into. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh explained that the same argument could be run against companies that make baseball bats and knives sold in high-crime areas, not to mention pharmaceuticals or automobiles. “Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they’re going to misused by some subset of people,” he said.

The editors also argue that "efforts to reduce the southward flow of firearms are sorely needed," but their suggested solutions are also a refreshing change of pace from what we've seen in the past. There's no mention of the supposed need for an "assault weapon" ban or any other gun control law aimed at lawful owners. Instead the editors suggest increasing straw purchase prosecutions and "stronger border security." 

All in all, I'd say this is a good start from the WaPo editors when it comes to opining on Second Amendment issues, but I still want to see where the paper comes down on things like our personal liberty to possess a semi-automatic rifle or to lawfully carry at the age of 18. Opposing Mexico's junk lawsuit is a welcome surprise given the historical animosity the paper and its editors have displayed towards our right to keep and bear arms, but given the outrageousness of the lawsuit itself its also pretty low-hanging fruit.