Mexico City, Mexico – The government of Mexico has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against several major U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock, Beretta, and Ruger. The lawsuit alleges that these companies have played a role in the rampant cross-border gun trafficking that has fueled violent crime in Mexico. In a significant ruling, a federal appeals court in Boston recently decided that the gun industry’s immunity shield does not apply to Mexico’s lawsuit, allowing it to proceed.
The lawsuit seeks not only damages but also a court order to force the gun-makers to change their business practices. This decision to allow Mexico’s lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, marking a potential turning point in lawsuits against the gun industry. To understand the significance, it is important to delve into the federal law that currently safeguards gun manufacturers from civil liability.
In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to injuries resulting from the criminal misuse of guns. However, this immunity has its limitations. For instance, it does not cover manufacturers or sellers who knowingly violate state or federal statutes pertaining to the sale or marketing of firearms. Mexico’s lawsuit contends that the U.S. gun-makers aided and abetted illegal weapons sales to gun traffickers, in violation of federal law.
Mexico’s allegations against the gun manufacturers are serious. The lawsuit claims that these companies engaged in deliberate efforts to create and maintain an illegal market for their weapons in Mexico. It argues that the manufacturers intentionally design their firearms to appeal to criminal organizations by incorporating features such as easy conversion to fully automatic fire, compatibility with high-capacity magazines, and removable serial numbers. Mexico also points to industry marketing that targets buyers with promises of a tactical military experience, further fueling demand for illegal firearms.
The gun-makers, however, argue that Mexico’s attempt to hold them responsible for criminal activity infringes upon the federal immunity shield. They maintain that merely selling a product that is later used in a crime does not amount to a violation of federal law that would strip them of immunity. Additionally, they assert that they have no legal duty to prevent criminal violence that occurs outside the United States.
The next legal steps in this high-stakes case involve Mexico producing evidence to substantiate its allegations and convincing a Boston jury that the manufacturers’ design choices, marketing campaigns, and distribution practices directly contribute to street crime in Mexico. This will require establishing a legal concept known as “proximate cause.” Meanwhile, the gun-makers have requested a hold on the case as they pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Historically, the Supreme Court has been cautious in weighing in on gun industry cases until they have been resolved in lower courts.
If Mexico succeeds in its lawsuit, it could have significant ramifications for the gun industry. Not only could it lead to bankruptcy for several major firearm manufacturers if the $10 billion demand is granted, but it could also set a precedent for future litigation that could potentially reshape the industry. Similar to the pharmaceutical industry’s experience with opioid litigation, where civil lawsuits forced drugmakers to overhaul their practices and pay billions in judgments, Mexico’s lawsuit holds the potential to bring about a similar reckoning for the gun industry.