The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a writ of certiorari in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The Supreme Court will determine whether foreign countries can sue American firearms companies for violence that happens outside the United States’s borders.
Mexico sued Smith & Wesson, the firearms wholesaler Interstate Arms, and six other gun companies, accusing the American businesses of aiding in the illegal arms trafficking of guns 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 was allowed to continue against Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms.
The lawsuit included nine counts. Mexico alleges that the companies are aiding and abetting the gun running to Mexican narco-terrorist groups. The plaintiffs claim that the companies are unlawfully designing and marketing their products to appeal to the Mexican drug cartels. They claim that the companies do this by associating their products with the military and the police. Mexico also claims that the companies are maintaining a distribution system with dealers who conspire with straw purchasers to traffick firearms across the southern border.
Cartel violence has killed many civilians, police, and government officials south of the border. Drug cartels control vast swaths of land across Mexico, leading to territorial wars between different cartel groups for control of the drug and human trafficking business. Many local police have been bought and paid for by the cartels. This forces Mexico to use military assets to fight back against these rogue narco-terrorist groups. Multiple politicians in Mexico ignore the narco-war violence due to bribery or fear of reprisals from criminal drug organizations.
Mexico is seeking monetary damages estimated to be billions of dollars from the gun companies and a court order requiring the American companies to take steps to “abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico.” They claim the violence contributes to the decline of business investments in Mexico. They also blame the gun companies for the high cost of health care and military and law enforcement services within the country. The borderline failed narco-state is putting the blame for the violence at the feet of the firearms companies.
Gun companies argue that they are protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The PLCAA shields firearms manufacturers and distributors from liability for the criminal misuse of their products. In 2022, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor threw out the case against the gun companies. The judge cited that the PLCAA was designed to protect American firearms companies from lawsuits like Mexico’s. Mexico appealed the ruling to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s ruling, stating that Mexico had a plausible claim that Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms “aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico.” The court stated that PLCAA does not protect companies from gross negligence, such as knowingly causing harm to the government of Mexico.
The gun companies argue that the lawsuit is about forcing companies to adopt gun control. The Defendant’s attorneys argued that this suit’s purpose is to “bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.” American anti-gun groups have been helping Mexico in their lawsuits. Many see this as another attack vector these groups use since their efforts within the United States have largely failed.
If the lawsuit succeeds, it would open the floodgates to similar lawsuits from other countries. This lawfare 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 on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
MEXICO and its abhorrent citizens are the problem.
Why didn’t they sue Obamy and Holder for their Fast & Furious gun running stunt?
Any claim of conspiracy is a long reach in our legal system. Where is the proof? A de facto argument is not enough. So where is the evidence? Well, these claims of ‘marketing’ to police and military agencies as a motive force behind mass shootings have been completely ‘debunked’ to use a leftist term. So Mexico must find some evidence. At the same time there is a mountain of evidence that the government of Mexico, federal and local is corrupt beyond redemption and that that corruption and collusion with drug cartels is the real problem. There is no need to… Read more »
I want to know how much US goverment money is going to mexico to fund Mexico’s law suite against our companies.
Mexico can pound sand , we need to file suit on them for the invasion at our southern border and all the fentinol deaths in this country. Thst should shut them up for eternity.
The reason America always looks for war in every part of the world, except south of the border is because the CIA runs the drug cartels. The only time DEA takes down a drug lord is because he isn’t paying his cut to the CIA.
Every see the 1987 film ‘Extreme Prejudice’? This isn’t a new idea. Plus, there’s always Iran-Contra, and then the CIA drug operations back during the Vietnam war, and Air America flying around the drugs.
This whole thing is bullshit but if the supreme court finds that Mexico can sue the USA then payment should be made and they can start by taking everything away from Obummer and Holder to get the money.