Categories
Politics

Mexico sues U.S. gun producers, alleging they trigger huge harm to nation

Mexican soldiers guard a crime scene.

Guillermo arias | AFP | Getty Images

The Mexican government on Wednesday sued several US arms manufacturers for contributing to the illegal arms trade in Mexico.

The lawsuit was filed in US federal court in Boston. Among the defendants named in the lawsuit are Smith & Wesson, Barrett Firearms, Beretta USA, and Colt’s Manufacturing Company.

The companies did not immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.

The arms manufacturers are accused of negligent business practices that facilitate the smuggling of arms to Mexico and cause “massive damage” to the country. The lawsuit alleges that they knowingly supply the criminal arms market in Mexico. Military-style companies’ weapons often end up in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals who harm civilians and government personnel.

Mexico has reported historically high murder rates in recent years, some of which in the lawsuit are attributable to the arms trade from the United States in violation of Mexican gun laws.

“The consequences in Mexico were dire. In addition to the exponential increase in the murder rate, the behavior of the defendants has had an overall destabilizing effect on Mexican society,” the lawsuit said.

The Mexican government is demanding compensation for the financial toll and bloodshed caused by the alleged wrongful conduct of the defendants. Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said at a press conference on Wednesday that the government is targeting an estimated $ 10 billion, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

Mexico’s Secretary of State Marcelo Ebrard watches during a press conference to announce that Mexico has sued several arms manufacturers in a U.S. federal court accusing them of negligent business practices that resulted in the illegal arms trade that took place in Mexico in Mexico City, Mexico, on 4th, 2021.

Luis Cortes | Reuters

“For decades, the government and its citizens have been the victims of a deadly flood of military and other particularly lethal weapons that have passed from the United States across the border into criminal hands into Mexico,” the lawsuit said.

“This flood is not a natural phenomenon or an inevitable consequence of the gun business or US gun laws. It is the predictable result of the willful acts and business practices of the defendants, ”it said.

The compensation would cover, among other things, the cost of deaths and injuries to Mexican police and military personnel, social services for victims of gun crimes and their families, and strengthening law enforcement to prevent the gun trade, the lawsuit said.

Laws in Mexico severely restrict the sale of firearms, and the Mexican government issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year, according to the lawsuit.

But the defendants are undermining these laws, the lawsuit says. An estimated half a million weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the United States each year, and the defendants produce over 68% of them, the lawsuit said.

That means they sell more than 340,000 firearms to criminals annually, which flow across the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit states that the defendants do not regulate their gun distribution practices. They sell guns to any distributor or dealer with a US license, regardless of whether they illegally sold guns to Mexico, the lawsuit says.

The defendants are also charged with marketing their weapons in a way that attracts transnational criminal organizations such as Mexican drug cartels. Barrett Firearms, for example, markets one of its rifles as a “weapon of war,” but sells it to the general public without restrictions, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit alleges that it enabled criminals to attack the Mexican military and police, and increased extortion and kidnapping.

Ebrard on Wednesday urged U.S. arms manufacturers to end their business practices which he believes are contributing to violence and deaths in his country, Reuters reported. He said he believed the US government, not mentioned in the lawsuit, was ready to work with Mexico to curb the illegal arms trade.

Categories
Politics

NAACP sues Trump, Giuliani, alleging conspiracy to incite Capitol riot

President Donald Trump looks on at the end of his speech during a rally to contest the certification of the results of the 2020 US presidential election by the US Congress on January 6, 2021 in Washington, USA.

Jim Bourg | Reuters

The NAACP and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, sued former President Donald Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and two right-wing groups on Tuesday for plotting to incite the fatal Jan 6 Riots in the US Capitol.

The lawsuit, which is likely to include other Democratic lawmakers, cites the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which accused the defendants of conspiring to prevent Congress from electing Joe Biden to confirm to president.

This law was passed 15 years after the end of the civil war in response to the violence of the racist KKK and its intimidation of South Congressmen.

In addition to Trump and Giuliani, defendants in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC include the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, members of which were known to be among the thousands of people who broke into the Capitol last month.

The lawsuit comes three days after Trump was acquitted of instigating the uprising in his second Senate impeachment trial. Only seven Republicans voted to condemn Trump.

Trump had said without evidence for months before election day that the 2020 presidential contest would be fraudulent. He spent two months after his loss to Biden falsely claiming that he won the election and that there was widespread election rigging that passed the official results on to the Democrats.

On January 6, shortly before the Capitol invaded, Trump, Giuliani, and other speakers at a rally outside the White House encouraged supporters to oppose the confirmation of Biden’s victory by a joint congressional session, which is usually a formality.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit, the NAACP said: “The uprising was the result of a carefully crafted plan by Trump, Giuliani, and extremist groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, all of whom shared the common goal of using intimidation. Harassment and Threats to Stop Electoral College Certification. “

“They succeeded in carrying out their plan. After seeing the Capitol police barricade the doors of the house’s chamber with furniture, Congressman Thompson and other lawmakers put on gas masks and were taken to the Longworth House office block to take them.” More than 200 other representatives, employees and staff members sought protection. “

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of a coordinated plan to undermine the democratic electoral process and block the legal votes on millions of ballots cast by black Americans.

“January 6th was one of the most shameful days in our country’s history and was instigated by the president himself,” Thompson said in a statement.

“His joyful support of violent white supremacists resulted in a rupture of the Capitol that put my life and that of my colleagues in grave danger. It is a coincidence that the outcome was no more fatal. While the majority of Republicans in The Senate have a responsibility to holding the president accountable has been given up. We must hold him accountable for the uprising he has so obviously planned. “

Thompson added that the failure to hold the defendants accountable “invites this kind of authoritarianism to the right-wing anti-democratic forces so intent on destroying our country.”

Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, said in a statement: “President Trump was acquitted in the recent Democratic witch hunt and the facts are irrefutable.”

“President Trump did not plan, produce or organize the January 6 rally on the Ellipse. President Trump did not instigate or conspire violence in the Capitol on January 6,” Miller said.

He added that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., “And Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, have to answer questions about why they turned down additional Security and National Guard assistance in the run-up to Jan. 6. “

Giuliani did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Categories
Politics

Biden DOJ drops swimsuit alleging discrimination in opposition to White, Asian candidates

Students walk on the Yale University campus in New Haven, Connecticut.

Shannon Stapleton | Reuters

The Justice Department on Wednesday dropped a case against Yale University alleging the Ivy League institution discriminated against white and Asian applicants in its admissions process.

The decision, announced in a filing with the Connecticut Federal District Court, marks a reversal of the stance of the Justice Department under President Donald Trump, whose administration spoke out against educational policies geared towards increasing racial diversity. President Joe Biden had made racial justice a top priority in his administration.

Yale had denied allegations that its licensing practices were discriminatory. In a statement, spokeswoman Karen Peart said the school was “satisfied” with the DOJ’s decision.

“Our admissions process has enabled Yale College to bring together an unprecedented student body characterized by academic excellence and diversity,” said Peart.

The Trump Justice Department targeted higher education institutions for admissions practices that took into account applicants’ race and country of origin.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld racial licensing practices, despite setting limits on how important a factor racing can be.

The Justice Department announced in August that a two-year investigation found that Yale’s practices were unlawful.

“Although the Supreme Court ruled that colleges receiving federal funding may, in certain circumstances, consider the race of applicants as one of several factors, the Justice Department found that Yale’s use of the breed is far from limited,” the department said in a press release at the time.

The department said Yale used the race “in several steps of its eligibility process, resulting in a multiplied effect of the race on an applicant’s likelihood of eligibility, and Yale racially equalizes its classes.”

Including racing in admissions processes is common among US universities, but remains controversial.

In November, the U.S. First Appeals Court dismissed a separate lawsuit challenging Harvard University’s use of the breed in admissions because the school discriminated against Asians.

The Justice Department sided with Students for Fair Admissions, the group behind the lawsuit, in one case by a court friend.

Edward Blum, the Conservative strategist who founded Students for Fair Admissions, said it was likely his faction would appeal to the Supreme Court, where a new Conservative majority of 6-3 is more suited to positive action than previous courts.

In recent years, the Supreme Court’s challenges to positive action have been fiercely fought.

The last time the Supreme Court reviewed the practice in 2016, it narrowly upheld it as it was being used at the University of Texas at Austin. The court ruling on this case was 4-3 and was drafted by Judge Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote.

Since the decision known as Fisher v University of Texas was made, Kennedy has retired and Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also in the majority, has died. In addition, three other Conservative judges have joined the bank, making it more likely that the court could rule against positive action in the future.

Subscribe to CNBC Pro for the live TV stream, deep insights and analysis of how to invest during the next president’s term.