Mexico wants to sue American gun manufacturers. The government there wants to blame gun manufacturers for the cartel violence that is so common south of the border. In their minds, companies are somehow supposed to know where a gun will end up versus where it's sold, so it's on them to somehow monitor every firearm it makes.

The whole thing is insane, but the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a bit of an obstacle for them.

See, they're trying to sue in US courts for what should be pretty obvious reasons. The PLCAA is stopping them, and now Mexico has an ally in their fight.

The willingness of some in the U.S. to aid a foreign power in an assault on American industry and Americans’ Constitutional rights is sad and disturbing.

On Jan. 17, California Attorney General Rob Bonta proclaimed his support for Mexico’s position in the ongoing case Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case, now at the U.S. Supreme Court, is an attempt by the Mexican government, working with U.S.-based gun control advocates, to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), make the U.S. firearms industry a scapegoat for Mexican lawlessness, and impose billions of dollars in liability on American gun manufacturers for violence perpetrated by violent criminals south of the border.

Readers should know that the PLCAA was enacted in 2005, with broad bipartisan support, to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

These suits, though without legal merit, posed a grave threat to the industry — and in turn, American gun owners and their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In 1998, the executive director of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors was quoted by the New York Times as stating, “[t]he lawyers are seeing green on this issue… they think they can bring the gun industry to its knees.” One of those attorneys “seeing green,” John Coale, was quoted in a 2000 Washington Post article remarking, “[t]he legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.”

Now, I'd like to say that this is California just being blatantly anti-American, but it's not.

Not directly, at least.

See, my thoughts on this is that California would love to sue the firearms industry, as well as see private individuals file lawsuits. As noted, the end goal is to bankrupt the entire industry.

What's more, this would open the door for suing parts manufacturers when their products end up in privately made firearms that get used for crime as well, despite there being absolutely no way for them to know what kind of person is buying that trigger group or barrel or recoil spring.

See, you don't need to control guns if there are no guns to buy. You don't need to ban privately made firearms if there are no parts for those guns.

Of course, it doesn't quite work that way, and any attempt to do so would go up in flames as people build guns that don't need traditional gun parts at all, but these are people who think criminals are getting guns from gun stores.

But that's where California is probably going with this, and it doesn't make me feel any better about that entire state.