It seems hypocritical to me that the US does not want to take responsibility for the guns that cross the border into Mexico, but they blame Mexico for the drugs that cross the border into the US. Especially when statistically, the drugs come into the country with people coming into the country legally.
Yeah, American citizens and legal residents make the guns, make the money from the sale and manufacture of the guns, make up the group with the highest demand for illegal drugs and make up the majority of people bringing in the drugs. But Mexico!
I have no doubt that SCOTUS took this case so its conservative justices could use it to cripple the few laws that some states have passed to make it less difficult to bring actions against gun manufacturers under the PLCAA. In an era with ballooning gun industry profits, when guns are the leading cause of death for American children and teens, where gun violence is a major driver of migration from south of the border and where cartels armed with American guns facilitate the illegal drug trade into the U.S., what are we doing? Trump issued an executive order that directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a review within 30 days “to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.” After that, Bondi is expected to present a plan to undo any policies the administration believes violate gun rights. On the chopping block are several high-profile attempts by the previous administration to reduce gun violence, including regulations on ghost guns, expanded background checks on gun sales, and tougher regulatory oversight of lawbreaking gun dealers. It will be even easier for people like the American in Texas who purchased almost a hundred assault rifles over a two-month period, two thirds of which have so far been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. He spent a few months in prison for paperwork violations. And things will be easier for gun dealers to engage in even more massive cash transactions, a major red flag for trafficking. We are already hamstrung by a law on the books that shields almost all gun dealer and trafficking information from public view. In addition, Trump has ordered the already strapped ATF, whose mission is to prevent gun trafficking and gun violence, to provide agents to assist in deportations, RFK Jr testified that gun violence is not a public health crisis and Trump shut down The Federal School Safety Clearinghouse, an interagency effort housed in the Dept of Homeland Security that was created by Trump’s first administration after the Parkland shooting to share resources and best practices related to school safety. Dark days.
I'm rooting for Mexico on this. And I'm saying this as a gun owner. My family used to be members of the NRA until they decided that gun ownership was the only thing that mattered, not responsibility, not the public good, and not American lives. We continue to own guns, but we have NEVER believed that there should be no restrictions on ownership. The NRA stands for the financial interests of the gun manufacturers, gun traders, and NRA leaders, not responsible 2nd Amendment stewardship. Mexico shouldn't have to pay, literally or figuratively, for the inability of our elected leaders to prioritize common sense over lining pockets.
SCOTUS will likely rule in the Gun manufacturers favor. Typically courts do not take kindly to lawsuits from other countries. This is true for all countries, not just the USA. I do fear that is this will embolden Manufacturers to do even more business with Cartels and nefarious people in the USA. Those guns are part of the reason we have people fleeing Latin American countries for the USA. While I hope SCOTUS holds the manufacturers accountable for violating marketing schemes, I think ultimately, they will decide that it falls on Mexico to prevent Cartels from getting access to guns. Which will do nothing to help the border issues.
I am probably a rare liberal who doesn’t want to see the second amendment abolished. However, I do believe we need to really look at what kind of guns are sold, how they are sold, and prevent the illegal sale of them in gun show parking lots and other areas. We can’t keep saying we need to enforce the laws already in place if those laws are fundamentally flawed and or don’t have the backing of people charged to enforce those laws.
I point to Red Flag Laws. In many states I hear stories about police not enforcing them as they don’t believe them, and thus undercut their effectiveness.
I know I am going off topic here and into the realm of gun control but I feel this case is tied to that as well.
You make some good points but I take issue with your statement that implies that liberals want to abolish the second amendment. That's not true. The vast majority of people who lean liberal simply want more common sense gun regulations and policy. With everything going on I don't think that's an unreasonable position.
I agree with Gina. You are not rare, Kris. In actuality, I know of no one (personally) who advocates for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The problem isn't the amendment itself. The problem is that it is currently 'enforced' under the guise of a gross misinterpretation. In a nutshell: The founders never intended it to allow unfettered access to guns...yet that is how it is being interpreted today.
Not to mention when the 2nd amendment was written they couldn’t even fathom the array of powerful firearms we would have in the year 2025. In my opinion it is both ignorant and reckless to deny that there needs to be more common sense gun regulation. Sadly, if guns being the number 1 killer of children and teens in our country isn’t enough for people to agree to enforce stricter regulations I don’t know what would.
I hear it a lot in my area. I have gotten into arguments with people about it as well. That’s why I say it. It’s good to know that others feel the same way I do.
I just wish we could get out from under the NRA influence held over politicians.
Imagine if the situation were in reverse—that something deadly was pouring into our country from across the border—oh wait, it is: fentanyl. You’d think we’d be able to consider that it goes both ways and we need to do our part to stop our exporting guns to cartels, which will in turn help stop the importation of Fentanyl.
Also, HUMANS. The cartels not only engage in human trafficking but also run the coyote industry that sneak groups of migrants into the country. If you're actually worried about immigration, this gun legislation is critical.
I'd love more information about Project Thor (the article linked regarding the investigation into how American guns get into Mexico). Both Sharon and the article note that the U.S. intelligence estimates between 250,000 and 1,000,000 weapons are smuggled across the border from the U.S. into Mexico illegally.
I have so many questions about this. First, that is an incredibly wide range - are they saying that it varies from year to year but is within that range, or that they can't get more precise than that?
Second, it doesn't sound like there's any attempt to stop it as part of border security operations, even though that would significantly increase security in both countries. As a Texan, although I don't usually cross into Mexico via car, I do experience border checkpoints in areas close to the border every year and either get waved through automatically or just asked "U.S. citizen?" and then when I say yes, waved through without anything further. It seems like there is a lot more that could be done here on the U.S. side to prevent weapons leaking across the border, which would improve both countries immeasurably.
While I know border security is something people think is important - I wonder what their response would be too more security checkpoints. And those checkpoints taking longer. In addition to taking more time and money on the side of the agents, I have to wonder what people would say. Especially those who pass through them more often. Again maybe they'd be fine with it! But I have to wonder if there wouldn't be some push back to that. It seems like that is one of the tensions that exists there. The tension between what people want and what they want to put up with to get it.
Re: What this means for 45/47, it's so weird how things are complex issues and not black and white! Listen, I think we all know how this is going to go, but I really hope we're wrong.
Not weird. It’s a function, not a bug. I, also, hope for a positive and productive ruling. But no matter the decision, at least we are all better educated on the subject, and that is positive!
There was a great article in The Atlantic late last year "Seventy Miles in Hell" (link below) where one reporter embedded with a group of migrants trying to make it to the U.S. border. One thing that she discussed at length that isn't covered here is that the cartels have taken over the migrant-guide industry and thus the "coyotes" people hire to sneak them into the U.S. work directly for the cartels. I.E. it's not just about Trump's border security in general but about illegal immigration itself - these cartels are directly responsible for the flow of migrants into the country, using gun violence to enforce their monopoly and to get people past certain security points. I know that this isn't how our country currently works but truly the only thing that makes sense is to side with Mexico on this case if you are actually concerned about the flow of migrants into the country. That said, as Sharon has written, guns are the golden calf, so I can't imagine that the right thing will be done here, and we will instead see the very same people crying about the immigration situation who then turn around and actively arm cartels via lax gun regulation, knowing that the guns are going right to cartels who then sneak large groups of people into the country. LOL maybe it's a job security thing? They arm the cartels to increase the immigration that they then run on?
So US supplies the guns that they take over the border to Mexico and then when migrants are fleeing to our country to get away from the violence, we reject them. 😡
I’d like to ask Sharon directly: Do you *really* think Mexico stands a chance here???
It’s not that I don’t think it’s important to discuss/know about; and of course it goes both ways (re: border security) Also, very brave for Mexico to try to work within the system! However, I’m 💯 sure the SC will rule that Mx doesn’t have a standing; since there’s no way in hell they’ll touch the 2nd Amendment with a 10 foot pole 🤷🏻♀️ so the question really is: do you think this is really going anywhere???
I follow Christy Carlson Ramon from Kim Possible on Disney and she was recently shot in the face at a gun range by a friend who wasn’t using a gun safely. Can you imagine the difference it would have made if they had some sort of training requirement before you could own a firearm.
And unrelated to my previous comment, I wonder if the Supreme Court might try to go the route of saying that Mexico doesn't have standing. I am absolutely not a lawyer of any kind, so I don't know if that argument holds any merit or is possible, but it seems like the Court has recently gone in that direction when trying to avoid a more controversial decision.
It seems hypocritical to me that the US does not want to take responsibility for the guns that cross the border into Mexico, but they blame Mexico for the drugs that cross the border into the US. Especially when statistically, the drugs come into the country with people coming into the country legally.
Yeah, American citizens and legal residents make the guns, make the money from the sale and manufacture of the guns, make up the group with the highest demand for illegal drugs and make up the majority of people bringing in the drugs. But Mexico!
I’d love to see US gun manufacturers go out of business. I know it won’t happen, but a girl can dream.
Today I learned Congress granted those manufacturers immunity from the harms they cause. I needed a moment after reading that in today's post.
I have no doubt that SCOTUS took this case so its conservative justices could use it to cripple the few laws that some states have passed to make it less difficult to bring actions against gun manufacturers under the PLCAA. In an era with ballooning gun industry profits, when guns are the leading cause of death for American children and teens, where gun violence is a major driver of migration from south of the border and where cartels armed with American guns facilitate the illegal drug trade into the U.S., what are we doing? Trump issued an executive order that directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a review within 30 days “to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.” After that, Bondi is expected to present a plan to undo any policies the administration believes violate gun rights. On the chopping block are several high-profile attempts by the previous administration to reduce gun violence, including regulations on ghost guns, expanded background checks on gun sales, and tougher regulatory oversight of lawbreaking gun dealers. It will be even easier for people like the American in Texas who purchased almost a hundred assault rifles over a two-month period, two thirds of which have so far been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. He spent a few months in prison for paperwork violations. And things will be easier for gun dealers to engage in even more massive cash transactions, a major red flag for trafficking. We are already hamstrung by a law on the books that shields almost all gun dealer and trafficking information from public view. In addition, Trump has ordered the already strapped ATF, whose mission is to prevent gun trafficking and gun violence, to provide agents to assist in deportations, RFK Jr testified that gun violence is not a public health crisis and Trump shut down The Federal School Safety Clearinghouse, an interagency effort housed in the Dept of Homeland Security that was created by Trump’s first administration after the Parkland shooting to share resources and best practices related to school safety. Dark days.
Damn! Thank you!
I'm rooting for Mexico on this. And I'm saying this as a gun owner. My family used to be members of the NRA until they decided that gun ownership was the only thing that mattered, not responsibility, not the public good, and not American lives. We continue to own guns, but we have NEVER believed that there should be no restrictions on ownership. The NRA stands for the financial interests of the gun manufacturers, gun traders, and NRA leaders, not responsible 2nd Amendment stewardship. Mexico shouldn't have to pay, literally or figuratively, for the inability of our elected leaders to prioritize common sense over lining pockets.
Two things are true.
President Trump proved he didn’t care about the border when he killed the bipartisan border bill.
Also, please tell me again, who are the “bad hombres”?
Thank you, Sharon, for this super important info.
Thank you for writing this piece. I live in Mexico and we see the fallout from this every day. It’s time that someone be held accountable.
SCOTUS will likely rule in the Gun manufacturers favor. Typically courts do not take kindly to lawsuits from other countries. This is true for all countries, not just the USA. I do fear that is this will embolden Manufacturers to do even more business with Cartels and nefarious people in the USA. Those guns are part of the reason we have people fleeing Latin American countries for the USA. While I hope SCOTUS holds the manufacturers accountable for violating marketing schemes, I think ultimately, they will decide that it falls on Mexico to prevent Cartels from getting access to guns. Which will do nothing to help the border issues.
I am probably a rare liberal who doesn’t want to see the second amendment abolished. However, I do believe we need to really look at what kind of guns are sold, how they are sold, and prevent the illegal sale of them in gun show parking lots and other areas. We can’t keep saying we need to enforce the laws already in place if those laws are fundamentally flawed and or don’t have the backing of people charged to enforce those laws.
I point to Red Flag Laws. In many states I hear stories about police not enforcing them as they don’t believe them, and thus undercut their effectiveness.
I know I am going off topic here and into the realm of gun control but I feel this case is tied to that as well.
You make some good points but I take issue with your statement that implies that liberals want to abolish the second amendment. That's not true. The vast majority of people who lean liberal simply want more common sense gun regulations and policy. With everything going on I don't think that's an unreasonable position.
I agree with Gina. You are not rare, Kris. In actuality, I know of no one (personally) who advocates for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The problem isn't the amendment itself. The problem is that it is currently 'enforced' under the guise of a gross misinterpretation. In a nutshell: The founders never intended it to allow unfettered access to guns...yet that is how it is being interpreted today.
Not to mention when the 2nd amendment was written they couldn’t even fathom the array of powerful firearms we would have in the year 2025. In my opinion it is both ignorant and reckless to deny that there needs to be more common sense gun regulation. Sadly, if guns being the number 1 killer of children and teens in our country isn’t enough for people to agree to enforce stricter regulations I don’t know what would.
You are not rare. Common sense gun control is for everyone!
I hear it a lot in my area. I have gotten into arguments with people about it as well. That’s why I say it. It’s good to know that others feel the same way I do.
I just wish we could get out from under the NRA influence held over politicians.
Imagine if the situation were in reverse—that something deadly was pouring into our country from across the border—oh wait, it is: fentanyl. You’d think we’d be able to consider that it goes both ways and we need to do our part to stop our exporting guns to cartels, which will in turn help stop the importation of Fentanyl.
Also, HUMANS. The cartels not only engage in human trafficking but also run the coyote industry that sneak groups of migrants into the country. If you're actually worried about immigration, this gun legislation is critical.
I'd love more information about Project Thor (the article linked regarding the investigation into how American guns get into Mexico). Both Sharon and the article note that the U.S. intelligence estimates between 250,000 and 1,000,000 weapons are smuggled across the border from the U.S. into Mexico illegally.
I have so many questions about this. First, that is an incredibly wide range - are they saying that it varies from year to year but is within that range, or that they can't get more precise than that?
Second, it doesn't sound like there's any attempt to stop it as part of border security operations, even though that would significantly increase security in both countries. As a Texan, although I don't usually cross into Mexico via car, I do experience border checkpoints in areas close to the border every year and either get waved through automatically or just asked "U.S. citizen?" and then when I say yes, waved through without anything further. It seems like there is a lot more that could be done here on the U.S. side to prevent weapons leaking across the border, which would improve both countries immeasurably.
While I know border security is something people think is important - I wonder what their response would be too more security checkpoints. And those checkpoints taking longer. In addition to taking more time and money on the side of the agents, I have to wonder what people would say. Especially those who pass through them more often. Again maybe they'd be fine with it! But I have to wonder if there wouldn't be some push back to that. It seems like that is one of the tensions that exists there. The tension between what people want and what they want to put up with to get it.
Re: What this means for 45/47, it's so weird how things are complex issues and not black and white! Listen, I think we all know how this is going to go, but I really hope we're wrong.
Not weird. It’s a function, not a bug. I, also, hope for a positive and productive ruling. But no matter the decision, at least we are all better educated on the subject, and that is positive!
There was a great article in The Atlantic late last year "Seventy Miles in Hell" (link below) where one reporter embedded with a group of migrants trying to make it to the U.S. border. One thing that she discussed at length that isn't covered here is that the cartels have taken over the migrant-guide industry and thus the "coyotes" people hire to sneak them into the U.S. work directly for the cartels. I.E. it's not just about Trump's border security in general but about illegal immigration itself - these cartels are directly responsible for the flow of migrants into the country, using gun violence to enforce their monopoly and to get people past certain security points. I know that this isn't how our country currently works but truly the only thing that makes sense is to side with Mexico on this case if you are actually concerned about the flow of migrants into the country. That said, as Sharon has written, guns are the golden calf, so I can't imagine that the right thing will be done here, and we will instead see the very same people crying about the immigration situation who then turn around and actively arm cartels via lax gun regulation, knowing that the guns are going right to cartels who then sneak large groups of people into the country. LOL maybe it's a job security thing? They arm the cartels to increase the immigration that they then run on?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/09/darien-gap-route-migrants-panama/679156/
So US supplies the guns that they take over the border to Mexico and then when migrants are fleeing to our country to get away from the violence, we reject them. 😡
I’d like to ask Sharon directly: Do you *really* think Mexico stands a chance here???
It’s not that I don’t think it’s important to discuss/know about; and of course it goes both ways (re: border security) Also, very brave for Mexico to try to work within the system! However, I’m 💯 sure the SC will rule that Mx doesn’t have a standing; since there’s no way in hell they’ll touch the 2nd Amendment with a 10 foot pole 🤷🏻♀️ so the question really is: do you think this is really going anywhere???
I follow Christy Carlson Ramon from Kim Possible on Disney and she was recently shot in the face at a gun range by a friend who wasn’t using a gun safely. Can you imagine the difference it would have made if they had some sort of training requirement before you could own a firearm.
And unrelated to my previous comment, I wonder if the Supreme Court might try to go the route of saying that Mexico doesn't have standing. I am absolutely not a lawyer of any kind, so I don't know if that argument holds any merit or is possible, but it seems like the Court has recently gone in that direction when trying to avoid a more controversial decision.
Thank you Sharon!!