Summary
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit brought by Mexico seeking to hold U.S. gun companies liable for firearm trafficking that fuels cartel violence.
Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not shield gunmakers who knowingly facilitate illegal sales.
Lower courts disagreed on whether the “predicate exception” applies, prompting the Supreme Court to step in.
If the ruling favors Mexico, it could open legal avenues for similar suits. Gunmakers contend Mexico’s claims fail due to multiple intervening steps before guns reach cartels.
In the opioid epidemic the Pharmacists got into trouble because they had relationships with the manufacturers, the Doctors, and the Patients. So in this instance the best fit for your analogy is the Firearms Dealers as they are the ones who have relationships with the Manufacturers, BATFE, and the buyers.
It doesn’t work like that. The sale of firearms from the Manufacturer to the Wholesaler is regulated by the Federal Government because they set the rules. In many cases the Manufacturer doesn’t even know what dealer is going to end up with how many firearms or of what type. Some of them certainly do but Interstate Arms nor Smith & Wesson are not special in that regard.
I do see your point about pharmacists being a better analog for gun dealers, but Purdue pharmaceutical was also liable in the opioid crisis, and that would be a much better analog /equivalent for the manufacturer.
Maybe I’m misreading the 2nd paragraph, but it seems like you’re saying: it doesn’t work like that, except when it does
By their logic, you can eliminate your liability for any evidently harmful product by installing a middleman.