© Provided by El Universal Online
Mexico accuses US armories of knowingly selling weapons that will end up in the hands of criminals The Mexican government supported today before the Massachusetts District Court its arguments once morest the United States armorieswhom he accuses of negligence in the sale of weapons that facilitates illegal trafficking and armed violence in Mexico.
During a hearing with Judge F. Dennis Saylor, the armories’ attorney, Andrew Leling, pointed out that it is absurd to argue that a gun maker he has to account for a shooting that happens in Tijuana, but not one in San Diego.
He assures that the Mexican demand is speculative, given that only 2% of the weapons manufactured in the United States end up in Mexico and that less than half of the weapons recovered on Mexican soil, used in crimes, come from USA.
He also defended that the PLACA law (Law for the Protection of the Legal Arms Trade) protects manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits and therefore the Mexican accusation does not proceed.
Las armerías acusadas son Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barret Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta USA Corp; Century International Arms, Inc.; Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC; Glock, Inc.; Sturm; Ruger &Co., Inc.; y Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc.
One of the lawyers who accompanied the Mexican legal consultant, Alejandro Celorio, defended that the arms manufacturers know that there is a “systematic and repeated” trafficking of the arms that they sell to the arms stores in Massachusetts.
The judge questioned whether that allegation would not imply that any country can sue the manufacturers of weapons when one of these ends up being used in a crime. The lawyer insisted that the key in the Mexican case is that it is not a single event, but a repeated and constant situation.
Regarding PLACA, he stressed that the law in the United States states that the courts of this country must “be open to lawsuits from foreign sovereigns” and, therefore, does not apply.
He accused gunmakers of deciding to “keep supplying” weapons despite knowing where they end up. “It was in the hands of the accused to prevent trafficking, that the weapons end up in criminal hands.”
He rejected, as the gunsmiths’ lawyers allege, that arms dealers are “independent actors” for which they are not responsible.
He defended that without the weapons of the United States, “there would be less crime and less violence.”
What Mexico asks, he insisted, is only that arms manufacturers act “legally and reasonably.”
“They shouldn’t provide to those who have a history of breaking the law. Why do they have to provide rifles that can shoot down helicopters? she questioned.
In his turn, Celorio affirmed that the fact that “the majority of sales -of weapons in the US- are legal does not mean that it is right to sell knowing that these weapons will end up in criminal hands.”
Manufacturers on American soil, he complained, “make their weapons in defiance of the law that says they cannot make those that can easily be made automatic.”
In that sense, he said, it is not justified for the armories to demarcate themselves by saying that the weapons they made are not the same ones used by criminals because they did not make said weapons that way, but rather they were modified.
The Mexican government emphasized that the lawsuit is not an attack once morest the Second Amendment that defends the right to own and buy weapons, or once morest the arms industry. “We just want defendants to do what the government has asked them to do: responsibly sell guns to law-abiding people, not criminals.”
Mexico filed its lawsuit once morest the arms manufacturers last August, pointing out that the armories know that “their distributors sell military weapons in bulk, without restrictions, clearly destined for traffickers”, and that, being aware, they are also responsible and cannot go unpunished
Judge Saylor said he will weigh all the arguments, without giving a date for a decision.
agv]]>