American gun control groups are backing the Mexican government in its attempt to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for allegedly aiding and abetting the drug cartel when their firearms cross the southern border.
A coalition of gun violence prevention groups has filed a brief with the Supreme Court, saying that a gun manufacturer should not “get out of liability free” when its conduct harms an innocent third party.
“Defendants willfully sell guns and ammunition to straw purchasers, minors, or others who cannot legally own them. These illegal acts cause foreseeable harm: first responders ambushed by felons, children gunned down by their classmates, women killed by domestic abusers under restraining orders,” reads the filing from the coalition that includes Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“The epidemic of firearm violence in this country is more serious today than it has ever been. It is pervasive,” reads a separate brief from March For Our Lives Action Fund, a youth organization against gun violence formed after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
“Gun dealers and manufacturers should be held responsible for negligent or criminal practices that contribute to these deeply troubling statistics. Some dealers repeatedly turn a blind eye to their obligations, fail to keep required records, allow guns to get ‘lost,’ and sell guns to straw purchasers,” March For Our Lives says in its brief.
The legal conflict before the justices involves gunmakers Smith & Wesson, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Glock, Beretta, Witmer Public Safety Group, Interstate Arms, Colt’s Manufacturing, Century International Arms and Sturm, Ruger.
It will be heard March 4, when the justices will consider whether the companies’ production of firearms is the “proximate cause” of the violence caused by drug cartels.
The gun companies argued that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in permitting Mexico’s lawsuit to advance, warning that other foreign governments could file lawsuits “all seeking to distract from their own political failings by laying the blame for criminal violence at the feet of the American firearms industry.”
“Mexico’s alleged injuries all stem from the unlawful acts of foreign criminals,” the companies’ brief reads.
Meanwhile, Mexico argues that 90% of guns recovered from crimes are trafficked from a specific group of gun dealers. It seeks $10 billion in damages.
The Mexican government says in its brief that U.S. gun companies may be protected from liability for lawful conduct under federal law, but they should be on the hook when unlawful conduct is involved.
Mexico told the high court that the companies “deliberately sell their guns through dealers who are known to disproportionately sell firearms that are recovered at crime scenes in Mexico.”
“They provide these red-flag dealers with the firearms that [the gun manufacturers] know cartels prefer, designing and marketing those firearms in ways they know cater to the cartels. They embrace distribution practices they know enable these red-flag dealers to illegally sell to cartel traffickers. And they intentionally do all this to boost their bottom lines. This constitutes classic aiding and abetting, in violation of federal law,” Mexico’s filing read.
A U.S. District Court initially dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, reasoning it bars lawsuits against firearm companies when their products are misused. The justices will decide if there is an exception to that law.
The 1st Circuit reversed the lower court decision, reasoning that the lawsuit is valid because the gun companies may be aiding and abetting cartels.
It is the first case involving the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to reach the high court.
Andrew Willinger, a law professor and executive director of Duke Center for Firearms Law, said he is not surprised that gun control groups have backed Mexico in the challenge.
“Although this isn’t a Second Amendment case, there are sort of atmospheric arguments being raised about Second Amendment rights,” Mr. Willinger said. “If allowed to proceed, these types of claims could have a detrimental effect on the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right by sort of drying up the supply of firearms.”
The case is Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. A decision is expected by the end of June.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.