Gun Manufacturers Move to Toss Mexican Government's Damages Lawsuit

A group of gun manufacturers and one gun distributor urged the District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 22 to toss a case against them filed by the Mexican government alleging that they fueled violence in Mexico through firearms sales practices that are illegal. Characterizing the suit as a "clash of national values," the gun manufacturers argued that the Mexican government's case represents a threat to America's constitutional freedoms and should be dismissed for myriad reasons -- chief among them the fact that Mexico does not have standing to sue these companies (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

The Mexican government launched its case in early August, taking the 11 total defendants to task for designing, marketing, distributing and selling guns in a way that arms the drug cartels in Mexico (see 2108050037). These practices include the use of corrupt gun dealers and the trafficking of weapons across the U.S.-Mexico border causing death, destruction and economic harm, the complaint said. Mexico said the companies lack a distribution monitoring system on their weapons.

The 11 companies named in the lawsuit include Smith & Wesson Brands, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Beretta Holding S.P.A., Colt's Manufacturing Co,. Inc., Century International Arms, Glock, Glock Ges.M.B.H., Sturm Ruger & Co., Witmer Public Safety Group doing business as Interstate Arms and Colt's Manufacturing Co. LLC. The suit was filed in the Massachusetts district court due to the companies' headquarters being located in the state.

In response to the lawsuit, the defendants submitted eight separate motions to dismiss the case along with one joint motion that lays out the grounds on which they argue the case should be tossed. This brief contains six reasons the manufacturers think the case should be dismissed, with the first one being that Mexico does not have standing to sue the companies.

The complaint itself admits that all of the alleged injuries are committed by third parties "mostly using guns the defendants do not manufacturer or sell," which they get through a long line of other independent criminal actors, the defendants point out. "Against this factual backdrop -- detailed in the complaint itself -- Mexico fails to allege that any of its injuries are fairly traceable to any named defendant. For this reason alone, the case must be dismissed," the motion said.

Even if standing is established, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents firearms manufacturers from being prosecuted due to the criminal use of a firearm by a third party. "Although Mexico tries to shoehorn some of its claims into these exceptions, it does not succeed," the brief said. "Instead, its real hope appears to be convincing the Court that the PLCAA does not apply at all to protect U.S. firearms companies against foreign plaintiffs. But the plain text of the statute forecloses that theory: It clearly protects U.S. firearms companies from suit in U.S. courts based on their conduct in the U.S."

The case does nothing more than "put a new coat of paint on a recycled and discredited set of claims," the gun manufacturers said. The 2001 Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp. case found that firearms companies cannot be held liable for the harms committed by third parties using these weapons, the defendants said. Just because the plaintiff is a foreign sovereign does not mean that this principle is to be tossed to the wind, the brief said.

The gun manufacturers go on to argue that the courts have no "legal duty to protect foreign sovereigns from derivative harms," even when guns are sold directly to Mexican citizens. Mexico also cannot bring in Mexican tort law to hold the defendants to a standard not found in U.S. law, in line with the "bedrock principles of international law," the companies said. "By trying to do so, Mexico is effectively seeking to impose its own gun control policies on U.S. firearms companies in disregard of the choices made by domestic legislatures and embedded in the federal and many state constitutions."

"By seeking to bankrupt U.S. gun makers, this gambit not only threatens America’s constitutional freedoms, but also the careful balance of firearms regulations set by Congress and state legislatures," the companies said. "It also tries to use the judiciary as a tool for circumventing an active diplomatic dispute between the United States and Mexico about the international effects of U.S. firearms policy. This Court need not play along. It should dismiss the complaint."