Grand Canyon Times

Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers, alleging responsibility for cartel violence, is now at the doorstep of the Supreme Court, following a federal appeals court’s decision allowing the case to proceed. 

Republican attorneys general and lawmakers are urging the court to take up the case, arguing against what they see as an infringement on Second Amendment rights and an affront to American sovereignty. 

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has spearheaded a coalition of 27 states and the GOP-controlled Arizona legislature, in a legal battle against attempts by the Mexican government to hold U.S. firearms manufacturers accountable for gun violence in Mexico. 

The coalition argues that a lower court's ruling, if left unchallenged, could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the protections afforded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA).

Communications staff for Knudsen pointed to a press release about the lawsuit after receiving an inquiry from the Grand Canyon Times. 

"American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals," Knudsen said in the press release. "Mexico's misguided policies have contributed to its own gun violence problem, and it is unjust to scapegoat U.S. companies that adhere to the law."

The case, titled Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (a/k/a the Country of Mexico), Respondent, centers around whether American gun companies can be held liable for the violence caused by drug cartels in Mexico.

According to the case, the Mexican government contends that American firearms manufacturers should be held responsible for the illegal trafficking of firearms into Mexico, which contributes to the country's pervasive gun violence problem. 

Knudsen and his coalition assert that the PLCAA was enacted to shield firearms companies from such liability and preserve Americans' constitutional rights.

The coalition's petition to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) seeks to overturn a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed Mexico's claims to proceed, arguing that it misinterprets the scope of the PLCAA and sets a dangerous precedent that could erode protections for firearms manufacturers.

In their argument, the attorneys general highlight Congress's role in regulating the firearms industry and the need for judicial deference to legislative intent. 

They also emphasize Mexico's sovereign responsibility to address its own policy failures rather than shifting blame to American companies.

"Militarizing the border or implementing stricter controls are within Mexico's sovereign power," the brief states. "Attempting to hold U.S. manufacturers liable for the consequences of Mexico's policy choices sets a troubling precedent that undermines the rule of law."

The coalition includes attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, along with support from the Arizona Legislature.

The Arizona Senate Republicans noted its addition to the challenge. 

“President @votewarren is taking action to protect your 2nd amendment rights from being threatened by Democrats and the Mexican government. In a federal lawsuit, Mexico is trying to blame American gun manufacturers for cartel violence, instead of their own government's negligent policies,” Arizona Senate Republicans said on X. 

“California and other blue states, along with anti-gun activists, are working to support Mexico's efforts in an attempt to put gun manufacturers out of business. This week, we joined 26 states to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on this case."

The case, initiated by a lawsuit filed by Mexico in 2021, accuses major firearms manufacturers of facilitating illegal gun sales to drug cartels, a claim disputed by the companies. 

The crux of the argument supported by Arizona’s GOP legislature rests on two questions presented to the court: Firstly, whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States can be considered the "proximate cause" of injuries suffered by the Mexican government due to violence perpetrated by drug cartels. And secondly, whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking, given that some firearms allegedly end up being unlawfully trafficked.

The case has drawn significant attention due to its potential implications for the firearms industry and the broader debate over gun control. 

“Mexico is a sovereign nation. It can close its borders if it desires to do so, but it chooses not to. Mexico’s policy decisions have caused cartel violence within its borders,” Knudsen’s team wrote in the amicus curiae. “And now, the Mexican government has adopted a conscious policy of refusing to address that violence. Mexico should not be permitted to effectively deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights to alleviate the negative consequences of its own policy choices.”

The trend of suing firearms manufacturers for crime has roots in a wave of litigation against the industry that began in the late 1990s. Cities like New Orleans, Chicago and Bridgeport, Conn., filed lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the costs associated with gun violence.