UPDATED 12/5/24 4:05 EST

A growing coalition of U.S. states and firearm advocacy groups is mounting a vigorous defense of American gun manufacturers against a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government. At the heart of the legal battle are accusations by Mexico that U.S. firearm companies are complicit in fueling gun violence across the border, claims that are patently laughable given the well-documented savagery of cartels with and without guns and widespread weakness and corruption at every level of the Mexican government.

Mexico’s Lawsuit Against American Firearm Manufacturers

The Mexican government has sought billions in damages from leading U.S. gun manufacturers, alleging their products contribute to violence perpetrated by drug cartels. Mexico’s case, revived by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after an initial dismissal, hinges on the claim that American gunmakers knowingly enable illegal trafficking into Mexico and that their marketing appeals to criminal organizations. The lawsuit also seeks sweeping gun control measures, including bans on “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines.

In response, the NRA, along with the Independence Institute and FPC Action Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing that the lawsuit epitomizes the type of “abusive litigation” the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was designed to prevent. The NRA emphasized that only a small fraction of firearms used in Mexican crimes originate in the U.S. and that Mexico’s own governmental failures, not American manufacturers, are to blame for its crime rates.

The SAF also filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the industry and condeming the lack of logic in supporting such a lawsuit without standing as it would allow foreign countries to dictate what products are made in America and available to Americans.

“Mexico’s attempt to hold U.S. firearms manufacturers legally responsible for the criminal activity of others, in a foreign country, is precisely the type of lawsuit that Congress designed the PLCAA to block,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Mexico’s lawsuit isn’t just an attack on gun makers, it’s an effort to undermine the authority of Congress to protect manufacturers and consumers alike. As we note in our brief, if Mexico’s lawsuit is allowed to stand, it will result in a new wave of massively expensive litigation solely designed to crush the firearms industry and ultimately eviscerate the Second Amendment. That cannot be allowed to happen.” 

It makes as much sense as if Belgium decided to sue China for all of the gas-powered cars they make and allow to operate throughout much of Asia creating increased carbon emissions and tried to force them to stop using such cars or if California didn’t feel cigars were healthy so sued the Dominican Republic for making and exporting cigars in an effort to cripple the industy there. Or maybe, it makes as much sense as filing a wrongful death suit against Mexico for all the fentanyl their cartels smuggle into this country killing an estimated 76,000 Americans a year or suing Mexico for all the money United States taxpayers must pay to support illegals who sneak into the country and then must be supported financially like we’ve done under the Biden Administration.

Coalition of States Pushes Back

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, joined by attorneys general from 27 other states, has taken the fight to the Supreme Court, filing a brief urging the justices to reject the First Circuit’s interpretation of PLCAA. Knudsen criticized the theory of proximate causation adopted by the appellate court, warning that it would undermine protections for lawful gunmakers and open the door to meritless lawsuits.

“That Mexico disagrees with our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm ownership is no consequence to its ability to impose its preferences on the American people via judicial fiat. This lawsuit against American gun manufacturers recycles the failed, anti-gun lawfare tactics already rejected by Congress. Mexico’s legal theories have no basis in law or fact,” Knudsen stated.

Knudsen further highlighted Mexico’s role in its own gun violence crisis, pointing to the government’s inability to control drug cartels and enforce existing laws.

“If Mexico wants to end its domestic gun problem, it may do so. It could name and report the gun dealers who allegedly sell guns to drug cartels. It could attempt to negotiate with the United States to extradite individuals who trafficked guns to Mexico. It could finish its war with the cartels. It could even close its border with the United States. But it cannot end the domestic manufacturing of American firearms,” he wrote.

PLCAA and Its Role in the Fight

The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005, provides broad protections for firearm manufacturers and retailers, shielding them from liability for crimes committed with their legally sold products. Defenders of the law argue that dismantling these protections would pave the way for politically motivated lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry.

The NRA’s brief underscored this point, noting the historical context of similar lawsuits in the 1980s and 1990s.

“This case epitomizes the type of abusive lawsuit that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted to prohibit,” NRA stated.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

34 COMMENTS

  1. So, can we sue mexico for the drugs and illegals flowing across our borders?

    Mexico is a failed state ran by cartels.

    • Between fentanyl deaths and those murdered by illegals, it’s into the hundreds of thousands.

      • “Between fentanyl deaths and those murdered by illegals, it’s into the hundreds of thousands.”

        According to the incoming country rescue mission new border czar with Force Trump, and CDC, and various health and crime incident tracking databases federal and state and private orgs, collectively – since 2021, for fentanyl related:

        1. ~250,000 fentanyl deaths and fentanyl related deaths.

        2. More than 250,000 direct and related addictions.

        3. More than 300,000 fentanyl related crime incident inflicted injury upon victims.

        4. The hardest hit were black communities with numbers that work out to a 6,230% increase among Black males and a 2,140% increase for Black females inter-demographic. But compared to other demographics the Black demographic fentanyl death rate was more than twice (trending towards 3/4 higher rate) that of Hispanics and 28% higher than that of whites. This is a disturbing trend, it also matches closely the addiction vs death vs availability trend among the black community under every Democrat president administration since Kennedy. Black individuals aged 15–24 experienced a 88% rate increase in fentanyl overdose deaths and addiction rates compared to other age/racial groups.

        5. For Hispanic communities, ~52% of drug overdose deaths involved fentanyl.

        6. The American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population had the highest drug overdose death rates in both 2020 and 2021. But from 2022 to present the addiction vs death vs availability trend in this demographic area has increased 33% with fentanyl related drug overdose and addiction exceeding that of heroin, cocaine, and meth.

        7. In 2021 alone, over 107,000 Americans died of overdoses – at the time this was the highest ever recorded. Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids were responsible for these deaths. Fentanyl since has outpaced other synthetic opioids for addiction and overdose deaths.

        8. Fentanyl is now linked to 68% of all fatal drug overdoses in the U.S.

        100% of the above occurred during the Biden-Harris administration, after their intentionally open and insecure border policies got fully in place. The trend accelerated after Harris became the border czar.

        • The incoming country rescue mission by Trump is already having an effect > Mexico makes record fentanyl bust days after Trump tariff threat.

          “Mexican authorities have announced what they say is the largest fentanyl bust in the country’s history, with over a ton of the synthetic opioid seized in two raids in the cartel-ridden northern state of Sinaloa.

          …

          ‘Think (about it), the consumption of a person addicted to fentanyl over the course of a year is like a packet of sugar. Then think about a ton of fentanyl, we are talking about more than 20 million doses, and close to eight billion Mexican pesos ($394 million), the [Mexico] president said.

          The raids come days after US President-elect Donald Trump promised massive hikes in tariffs on goods from Mexico on the first day of his administration – a move he claims to be in retaliation for illegal immigration and ‘crime and drugs’ coming across the border.

          ‘This tariff will remain in effect until such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop this invasion of our country!’ Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on November 25.

          … ”

          (note: Biden-Harris could have done the same thing at any time, and taken a step towards saving countless American lives. Instead, they did “hey, welcome, come on in.”

          h ttps://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/americas/mexico-fentanyl-seizure-trump-tariffs-intl-latam/index.html

    • Don’t forget the growing influence of China in South and Central America. Where do you think the precursor chemicals for fentanyl and methamphetamine come from?

  2. How about suing Barry Sortero and Eric Holder for Fast and Furious, a program that actually did illegally get guns into Mexico?

        • Yes but the acts complained of occurred while he was in office, and were official acts to which the immunity applies. Holder and idiot Arizona AG who approved this cockamamie plan are equally immune.

          • So breaking existing gun laws related to trafficking is an official act? If it were a Republican that did that, the Democraps would have found some way to charge them.

      • “Can’t sue a sitting president.”

        As an individual…sure you can. You just can’t do it for anything at all, it has to be for criminal (or negligent type) actions.

        You can sue a former or current president for their criminal (or negligent type) actions that occurred while they were in office, whether the acts were official or unofficial.

        For a sitting president: The Federal Tort Claims Act sets the process and rules for suing the government, and that includes the president (when you sue you are suing the government but its the president in scope). The statute of limitations is typically two years. So, you need to submit your claim within two years of the situation. Once you submit your claim the government has six months to act.

        You can also sue a past or current president personally for non-official acts that were criminal or neglectful or injurious. For a personal civil claim against a president (present or former) you need to see a civil litigation attorney.

        A state is different, its one sovereign government (the state) suing another sovereign government (the federal government, specifically the president in scope), so the process is a little different and the scope doesn’t need to be just criminal actions and it can proceed.

        There’s a long history of law suits against presidents. Some happen and others are refused a Supreme Court hearing – but a lawsuit they were and were bought against a president. For example:

        * In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), A. Earnest Fitzgerald brought a lawsuit against several government officials, including President Richard Nixon. The Supreme Court decided that presidents are not immune to criminal charges while in office.

        * The Supreme Court heard Clinton v. Jones (1997). SCOTUS determined that a sitting president could not be sued in a civil suit for official actions until the conclusion of their term. This gave President Bill Clinton temporary immunity (though the case was able to start pre-trial discovery). When he left office, Paula Jones continued the sexual harassment lawsuit.

        Civil lawsuits: A sitting president has immunity from civil lawsuits while in office. But that does not mean you can’t sue them, in fact you can file and get the case started – and then after the president has left office the lawsuit can continue.

        You can bring a lawsuit against the president, current or former, the evidence needs to be iron-clad for an attorney or court to touch it though. Law suits for criminal actions can be brought at any time, but civil cases will typically need to wait until the president’s term ends before the case can proceed.

        • Damn, thanks for having the heart of a teacher.

          If you’re not already a writer on TTAG, you should be.

          Thank you for the effort.

      • “Can’t sue a sitting president.”

        yes, you CAN sue a sitting president.

        I posted information for this but it went to moderation.

        • I’ve got to disagree here. “Suing” a sitting president would violate the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. The ONLY method of accountability defined in the Constitution is impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate. After a president is removed for cause – he becomes subject to the federal and state law-enforcement apparatus.

          • it depends on the suit type.

            If its a civil suit (unofficial capacity acts or criminal conduct or other non-official personal acts), a sitting president has immunity from civil suits only as long as they are in office. The Supreme Court has said that the president can be sued for their ‘private acts’ (which is any act not done in an official capacity as president), but while in office has immunity from civil suits (wasn’t always this way, it was the effect of the Paula Jones case against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment that changed this). But, you can file the suit anyway and its put on hold until the president leaves office then the suit can proceed. This does not violate the separation of powers.

            There is a long history of sitting presidents being sued, either by individuals or states. For example: Bill Clinton, while the sitting president, got sued by Paula Jones. In 1994, wile Clinton was already serving his first term as U.S. president, Jones filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in Little Rock, Arkansas, alleging that Clinton exposed himself to her in an Arkansas hotel room in 1991; she sought $700,000 for damages. The case initially was dismissed in 1998 on the grounds that Jones failed to show damages. Jones appealed months later, prompting Clinton’s offer to pay her to settle the lawsuit. Richard Nixon got sued, numerous presidents have been sued going back to the 1800’s.

            But there are certain categories of acts conducted while the president, they do carry an immunity for and can’t be sued or criminally charged for even after leaving office.

  3. We should take Mexico’s concerns seriously and to show how serious we are we should build a big, glorious wall to keep our guns from going into their country.

    Save Mexico, build the wall.

    • And then slap them with a full embargo for a year, as an added f*ck-you. I’d gladly pay extra for the guac just to show them who’s boss.

      • California grows lots of avocados…we don’t need to import them. Besides, California has shown a willingness to devolve into a 3rd world state. Growing avocados for the rest of the country seems like a good fit for them.

      • Another major source of money for Mexico, which would seriously hurt them if it were cut off, is funds from people who are working in the US and sent to people in Mexico. I don’t have figures handy, but the last time I saw that it was substantial.

        I’m not sure if it would be possible, or even ethical, to curtail that. Certainly for US citizens and legal residents who do this, I’d say their money is theirs to spend however then want, unless they are sending cash to active enemies of the US or terrorist organizations. I don’t think the people of Mexico in general qualify as either, though terrorist organizations operate in Mexico.

        • The problem with both illegals and legal non-citizens sending their money abroad is that the US economy suffers from it. If the work those people are doing was being performed by US citizens, then the money would be *much* more likely to stay here, helping the economy. Furthermore, those US workers would have higher pay as a result of less competition from more desperate foreigners willing to work for less, again helping the economy. “But who would clean you toilet, Donald Trump?” (Libs are morons.)

          • I agree that people who are not legally qualified to work in the US shouldn’t be allowed to do so, and if those are a major source of cash outflow, I think it would be perfectly ethical to cut that off. Far easier to say than do of course.

            For now, like many I’d most like to see the removal of the criminals that have been allowed to flood in, particularly the violent criminals and members of criminal organizations like MS13. Still a major undertaking, but really needs to be done. Equal priority, I’d like to see the US government at least try to account for migrant kids who have gone missing, they might need help. Those first in my opinion.

  4. “The lawsuit also seeks sweeping gun control measures, including bans on ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large-capacity’ magazines.”

    Okay then. I saw an absolutely horrific video of a Mexican drug cartel execute eight prisoners with axes and then proceed to chop their dead bodies into smaller pieces which they dropped into large containers of acid (to dissolve the body parts). Does that mean Mexico can sue ax manufacturers in the U.S. as well? How about chemical companies which produced the acid?

  5. I never really liked tequila that much.
    Maybe Russia can sue the U.S. for the weapons Biden allocated to Ukraine?

  6. Florida High School Suspends Student For Idiotic Reason.

    h ttps://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2024/12/04/florida-high-school-suspends-student-for-idiotic-reason-n1227055

  7. Congress Weighs In on America’s Most Important Second Amendment Lawsuit..

    “We have already discussed this case a few times, but Smith & Wesson v. Mexico is one of the biggest 2A cases to come along in a very long time. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the recent amicus brief filed by Congressional Republicans who correctly point out that if this ruling were to stand, it is a direct violation of the Separation of Powers. This is just one of the many, many reasons that this suit is so dangerous.”

    h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgTbHtmg

  8. REPORT: Why Hunter’s pardon covers 10 years and not the 2 years of the gun and tax charges.

    h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeEHunc7F8k

  9. Biden (falsely) Claims Gun Charges Never Get Jail Time – Hunter Biden Pardon.

    h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sphDHtNLyCg

  10. Even IF US gun manufacturers are somehow responsible for the narco-state that is Mexico, what makes you think that in the absence of a US gun supply China wouldn’t fill the gap with as many AK-47s as they can crank out?

    The war on drugs has perfectly illustrated that a war on the supply-side is completely and totally ineffective in curbing the black market.

    • Banning won’t work in the context of a free society. Few question that a full-on dictatorship could make the “glorious” drug-free state happen, albeit most likely only temporarily.

      Further, the obsession with making bans effective is the main excuse given for why we have been steadily moving away from a free society, (ie, losing our rights) for the last century or more.

      Nationalize the black market. Let the junkies go, and the sober will rule.

Comments are closed.