The cartels in Mexico are known for, if nothing else, violence. They’re responsible for the vast majority of drugs trafficked into the United States, and Mexican authorities claim as much as two-thirds of all the intentional homicides in the country are tied to organized crime. So who’s responsible for all this violent crime? Many would assume the answer is the cartels – but not Mexico. According to our neighbor to the south, American guns are used in most of the murders, so clearly US firearm manufacturers are to blame.

Or so goes the logic behind the lawsuit. Mexico is suing an American manufacturer and a distributor – Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms – for helping to fuel what it calls an “epidemic of violence.” A lower court tossed the suit a couple of years ago, but, more recently, an appeals court overturned that ruling. Now the US Supreme Court will determine whether Mexico can sue American companies for how their products are used.

The lawsuit initially named five other manufacturers – Barrett, Baretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, and Ruger – but those were released from the case on procedural grounds. The nine-count complaint alleges that the companies violated state laws by aiding and abetting the trafficking of guns to Mexican drug cartels. Supposedly, these companies “unlawfully” designed and marketed their products with the aim of driving up demand among cartels by making them seem like military weapons.

The two companies remaining in the suit filed an appeal in federal court in Boston back in 2021, arguing that under a 2005 US law, they were protected from liability. US District Judge Dennis Saylor of Boston threw the case out in 2022. But the First US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Saylor’s decision in January, arguing that Mexico had plausibly claimed that the US companies “aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico.” If true, the 2005 law wouldn’t protect them.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 limits the civil liability of a firearm manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or importer. It was passed to prevent civil lawsuits when a firearm is used unlawfully but works as intended.

Imagine suing Stanley tools after a mechanic stabs someone to death with a screwdriver in a fit of rage – or a suit against Ford because a drunk driver mows down a pedestrian in an F-150. Left-wing anti-gunners love to bring up the 2005 law and say things both ridiculous and untrue, like that the US gun manufacturers are the only industry protected by law from being sued. That’s false on both ends. First, firearm makers can still be sued if their products don’t work right.

When guns go off on their own – with nothing hitting the trigger – the manufacturers absolutely can still be sued, like almost in any other industry. In the 1980s, pharmaceutical companies actually did get such protection. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 – signed into law by Ronald Reagan – pharmaceutical companies, doctors, nurses, and anyone else involved in the vaccine process are shielded from being held legally accountable for injury or death – and that is protection from being sued for a faulty product. No other industry – including the firearms industry – has ever been granted such legal immunity in the United States.

What the 2005 act does is protect a vulnerable industry targeted by political activists from frivolous lawsuits stemming from the behavior of others. Speaking of the behavior of others …

The cartels are responsible for much of the drugs and people smuggled into the United States, and it’s generally accepted as true that they have numerous politicians, law enforcement officers, and military personnel in their pockets to make it happen. Just the Sinaloa Cartel alone has “strongholds in nearly half of Mexico’s states – particularly those along the Pacific coast in the northwest and near the country’s southern and northern borders – and operations in at least forty-seven countries,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations. “In addition to fentanyl trafficking, the group engages in extortion, migrant smuggling, oil and mineral theft, prostitution, and the weapons trade.”

Felipe Calderón, who was president of Mexico from 2006 to 2012, declared war on the cartels shortly after taking office. There were more than 120,000 homicides during his presidency, and a 2018 report from the University of San Diego argued that between one-third and one-half of those homicides are linked to cartels.

Could it be that the organized crime syndicates with incredibly violent histories are, in fact, responsible for the murders committed by their members? Or does the blame for the “epidemic of violence” rest at the feet of the companies that make their guns? If Mexico’s allegation that those companies willfully worked with smugglers, then the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act likely won’t make much of a shield. Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.