It Sure Looks Like the Supreme Court Is Going to Make the Anti-Gunners Cry

It Sure Looks Like the Supreme Court Is Going to Make the Anti-Gunners Cry

Jeff Charles

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments from lawyers in Mexico's $10
million lawsuit against American gun manufacturers.

The Mexican government alleges that U.S. gun manufacturers are responsible for
fueling drug cartel violence in the country due to their marketing practices.

Democratic attorneys general have sided with the Mexican government, claiming
that manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock Inc., Ruger, and three
others should be held accountable for cartel violence in Mexico.

Conservatives have loudly criticized Mexico's lawsuit, arguing that its
government is simply using these companies as a scapegoat for a problem it has
failed to solve. They argue that allowing a foreign government to infringe on
the Second Amendment through our court system only grants them more power than
they should have.

Mexico claimed that U.S. gun manufacturers design, market, and distribute
firearms to criminal organizations. Its government accused these companies of
knowingly facilitating illegal gun trafficking into the nation, thereby arming
the cartels.

During oral arguments, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of Mexico's insistence
that U.S. gun manufacturers should be held liable for cartel violence.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the attorney representing the Mexican government, claimed
these companies "deliberately supply the illegal Mexican market by selling guns
through the small number of dealers that they know sell a large number of crime
guns and who repeatedly sell in bulk to the cartel traffickers."

She further noted that Mexican authorities "have repeatedly identified and
recovered defendants' guns in connection with notorious gun trafficking rings"
and that the companies "continue to sell to dealers that have been flagged for
illegal sales, demonstrating a knowing and deliberate strategy."

Prelogar argued that Colt, in particular, "produces three models of guns that it
specifically targets to the Mexican market, the Super El Jefe, the Super El
Grito, and the Emiliano Zapata 1911."

Mexico has strict gun laws. Its citizens are only allowed to purchase firearms
from the country's sole gun store after jumping through a series of hoops to
obtain a permit.

The attorney accused the companies of advertising their firearms as "military
grade" and featuring imagery "that directly appeals to criminal buyers."

Conversely, Noel Francisco, the attorney representing the gun manufacturers,
contended that Mexico's lawsuit lacks proximate cause and fails to meet the
criteria for aiding and abetting liability under U.S. law. He noted that "None
of my clients actually sell to consumers" but that they "manufacture firearms
that are then distributed through licensed dealers."

Francisco further pointed out that "There are multiple independent crimes that
break the chain of causation: Straw purchases, smuggling, illegal possession,
and cartel violence."

He asked, "If the government doesn't know which retailers are engaged in illegal
activity, how are we supposed to know?"

The attorney compared this case to Twitter v. Taamneh, in which the court ruled
that the social media platform knowing that terrorists use its service "was not
enough for aiding and abetting liability-this case is even weaker."

Both liberal and conservatives on the court seemed to doubt Mexico's claims.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked:

  What do you do with the suggestion on the other side and in the amicus briefs
that your theory of aiding and abetting liability would have destructive effects
on the American economy in the sense that, as you've read in the briefs, lots of
sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they're going to be
misused by some subset of people. We know that to a certainty, that it's going
to be pharmaceuticals, cars, you can name lots of products. That's a real
concern, I think, for me, about accepting your theory of aiding and abetting
liability.

Justice Samuel Alito indicated that if Mexico's lawsuit were allowed to go
forward, it could gut the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),
which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from most lawsuits when their
firearms are used to commit crimes. It does include exceptions if manufacturers
deliberately violate gun laws or are found to be negligent.

"If you accept their interpretation of the PLCAA exception, you will have
revived exactly the same type of lawsuit that PLCAA was meant to prohibit when
they adopted the statute in the first place," Alito said.

Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson appeared to agree with Alito, stating that
Mexico's
lawsuit amounts to "different kinds of regulatory constraints that I'm thinking
Congress didn't want the courts to be the ones to impose."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asserted that the manufacturers having knowledge that
their products could be used to commit violent crime "is not enough."

"You have to aid and abet in some way," she continued. "You have to intend and
take affirmative action to . participate in what they're doing.'

All indications seem to suggest that the Supreme Court will rule against the
Mexican government, which is a positive sign for gun rights.

If gun manufacturers are held liable for those who misuse their products, it
would constitute a direct threat to the Second Amendment. It would mean victims
of gun violence - and their families - would be able to sue these companies for
the actions of violent criminals.

Paying to defend themselves against these lawsuits would be quite costly. We can
already imagine how the anti-gunner lobby in the U.S. would exploit these deaths
to financially cripple gun manufacturers.

This would mean that Americans would incur higher costs associated with
purchasing firearms, which would be an indirect attack on the Second Amendment.
After all, what's the use of protecting the right to keep and bear arms when
nobody can afford to purchase these arms?

The fact that Democratic officials actually sided with a foreign government
seeking to diminish Second Amendment protections shows just how far they will go
to disarm the public. It's a good thing that they probably won't win this
battle.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/03/04/scotus-to-hear-smith-and-wesson-vs-mexicos-government-n2650144