A unanimous Supreme Court dismissed Mexico's claim that U.S. gun manufacturers aided and abetted the pipeline of weapons from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels.
"Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers," Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, wrote for the court.
At issue was Mexico's claim that Smith & Wesson and other gunmakers were turning a blind eye to hundreds of thousands of high-powered weapons made in the U.S that are illegally trafficked into in the hands of Mexican cartels.
Mexico argued that it is a country where guns are supposed to be difficult to get. There is just one store in the whole country where guns can be bought legally, yet the nation is awash in illegal guns sold most often to the cartels. Mexico maintains that gushing pipeline of what it calls "crime guns" comes from the United States where manufacturers know which dealers are the bad actors.
"You can't hide behind the middleman and pretend like you don't know what's happening," Jonathan Lowy, co-counsel for Mexico and president of Global Action on Gun Violence, told NPR earlier this year.
But the gun industry found that argument flawed.
Lawrence Keane, counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, told NPR earlier this year that every sale to a consumer by a licensed retailer is approved by the federal government, and every transaction requires a federally mandated background check.
Mexico is arguing that a "lawful distribution system that's approved under federal law … is aiding and abetting cartels," Keane said. "If that was all that was required, Budweiser would be responsible for drunk driving accidents all across the United States, and apparently including Mexico."
Ultimately, a unanimous Supreme Court agreed.
Thanks for the pointer! I took the opportunity to learn a bit about more recent NNTP by reading the standard: RFC 3977. It looks like nntp v2 circa 2006 added MIME encoding, so I would guess that may be how a service provider would differentiate.
I haven't used Usenet since the turn of the century. Back then it was all text (including every article under alt.binaries), and even pirated media needed to be split into a multi-part format (often rar) then each part uuencoded so it could be included in an article.