Image by Unsplash
Mexico is suing United States manufacturer Smith & Wesson, as well as distributor Interstate Arms, for unlawful business practices that support gun trafficking for drug cartels.
On October 4, the Supreme Court of the United States added the lawsuit to its docket for the current term, which began days later on October 7. In the suit, Mexico alleges its government and citizens are victims of violence resulting from an avalanche of U.S. firearms being trafficked to Mexican cartels.
The lawsuit claims the gun manufacturers’ deliberate distribution and marketing decisions encourage sales to “straw” buyers, who then dispense the firearms in Mexico or provide them to others who do.
Mexico has asked for $10 billion in damages as well as a court order requiring the manufacturers “take all necessary action to abate the current and future harm that their conduct is causing and would otherwise cause in the future in Mexico.”
Nearly 600,000 firearms are trafficked into Mexico from the United States annually. Seventy to ninety percent of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico come from the U.S., and nearly half of these weapons are made by the companies named in the suit. Mexico claims that gun dealers in American border states sold twice as many firearms as dealers in other parts of the country, implying that these weapons ultimately end up across the border.
In August 2021, Mexico filed the lawsuit against seven U.S. gun makers and one distributor, identifying them as the primary sources of the firearms used by Mexican cartels. It was initially dismissed by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the Federal District Court in Boston, who cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. This law has barred many suits by American cities and citizens against the makers and distributors of firearms.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously revived the suit in January 2024, agreeing it qualifies for an exception to the PLCAA for its claims of violations of gun laws that directly cause Mexico’s injuries. The judges agreed the manufacturers are aiding and abetting illegal sales, which is demonstrated in their design and marketing decisions as well as their passivity in the trade of their weapons to unlawful buyers.
“The complaint adequately alleges that defendants aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico,” said Judge William J. Kayatta Jr., writing on behalf of the panel.
The defendants include renowned manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock, as well as distributor Interstate Arms. The Supreme Court granted a bid from six gun makers to drop the suit on other grounds–many of them cited the PLCAA in petitions against the lawsuit–but Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms are still involved.
U.S. gun makers asked the Supreme Court to reverse its decision, predicting a flood of subsequent lawsuits from both domestic and foreign entities. They foresee these plaintiffs aiming for the atonement of the firearms industry for the violence initiated by users of their weapons. The defendants allege that the parties trafficking weapons into Mexico are breaking the law of their own accord, which removes liability from the companies.
Mexican drug cartels are the primary suppliers of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other illicit narcotics to the U.S. They flourished when Mexico was governed by a single party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), over several decades.
Within the centralized political sphere, trafficking groups constructed a vast network of corrupt officials, which afforded them distribution rights, market access, and protection. PRI’s incumbency ended in 2000 with the election of conservative president Vincente Fox. With new politicians in power, the cartels magnified their violence against the government in an effort to regain control over the state.
In 2006, Mexico launched a war on its drug cartels. Since then, the U.S. has provided it with billions of dollars for security and counternarcotics aid. The funds were aimed to help Mexico enhance its own security forces, reform its judicial system, and fund projects to curb irregular migration. The U.S. Congress has strengthened security and monitoring along the southern border in an effort to curb the influx of narcotics.
Cartels use a portion of their vast profits to pay off politicians, police, and judges. The assassinations of journalists and public servants are common — more than thirty candidates for the 2024 election were killed, the highest number in the past six years.
Mexico has strict gun control laws that make it nearly impossible for criminals to legally obtain firearms, yet gun violence is rampant. Thousands of Mexican citizens, including politicians, journalists, and students, die in conflict against the cartels every year. The nation has seen more than 430,000 homicides in the past twenty years.
With aid from American citizens, the cartels have been smuggling arsenals of military-grade weaponry out of the U.S. The gunrunning networks pay Americans to purchase weapons from gun stores and online dealers across the country. The firearms are then shipped to Mexico through a chain of brokers and couriers.
The questions presented by the Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos are: whether the production and sale of U.S. firearms is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government resulting from violence committed by drug cartels and whether the production and sale of U.S. firearms amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking, as firearms companies know some of their products are trafficked.
Petitions by U.S. gun makers state the lawsuit, regardless of its verdict, will loom over the firearms industry for years, with the Mexican government inflicting “costly and intrusive discovery” and coercing the industry into adopting gun control measures that American voters have already repeatedly shot down.
Comments