SCOTUS adopts Mexico’s anti-gun agenda

The United States Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari Smith & Wesson Brands v Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The Supreme Court will determine whether foreign countries can sue U.S. firearms companies for violence that occurs outside the borders of the United States.

Mexico sued Smith & Wesson, firearms wholesaler Interstate Arms and six other gun companies, accusing the U.S. companies of aiding the illegal arms trade to Mexican drug cartels by looking the other way. On procedural grounds, Barrett, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock and Ruger were removed from the lawsuit. However, the case against Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms was allowed to proceed.

The trial included nine counts. Mexico claims the companies support arms trafficking against Mexican narcoterrorist groups. Prosecutors allege that the companies unlawfully design and market their products to appeal to Mexico’s drug cartels. They claim that the companies do this by associating their products with the military and police. Mexico also claims the companies maintain a distribution system with dealers who collude with straw buyers to traffic firearms across the southern border.

Cartel violence has killed many civilians, police and government officials south of the border. Drug cartels control vast swathes of land across Mexico, leading to territorial wars between various cartel groups for control of the drug and human trafficking industry. Many local police officers have been bought and paid by the cartels. This forces Mexico to use military resources to fight back against these rogue narco-terrorist groups. Several politicians in Mexico ignore narco-war violence due to bribery or fear of reprisals from criminal drug organizations.

Mexico is seeking monetary damages estimated at billions of dollars from the weapons manufacturers and an injunction requiring the U.S. companies to take steps to “reduce and remedy the public nuisance they have caused in Mexico.” They argue that the violence is contributing to the decline in business investment in Mexico. They also blame the weapons companies for the high costs of health care and military and law enforcement services in the country. The failed narco-state blames the violence on firearms manufacturers.

Gun companies claim they are protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA protects firearms manufacturers and distributors from liability for criminal misuse of their products. In 2022, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor dismissed the case against the gun companies. The judge cited that the PLCAA was intended to protect U.S. firearms companies from lawsuits like the one in Mexico. Mexico appealed the ruling to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s ruling, holding that Mexico had a plausible claim that Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms “aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of arms into Mexico.” The court stated that PLCAA does not protect companies against gross negligence, such as knowingly causing harm to the government of Mexico.

The gun manufacturers claim the lawsuit is about forcing companies to adopt gun control. The defendant’s attorneys argued that the purpose of this lawsuit is to “bully the industry into passing a host of gun control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.” US anti-gun groups have helped Mexico in their lawsuits. Many see this as a new attack vector for these groups to use, as their efforts in the United States have largely failed.

If the lawsuit is successful, it would open the floodgates for similar lawsuits from other countries. This legislation could drastically change the gun industry forever.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and about the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.