Support Pours in for Mexico's Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers

Thirteen U.S. states, along with Washington, D.C., two Latin American and Caribbean nations and a host of gun violence prevention organizations moved to appear as amici curiae to support the Mexican government's lawsuit against gun manufacturers, which alleges that they fueled violence in Mexico through illegal firearms sales practices (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

The gun manufacturers countered this lawsuit with a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the suit merely represents a "clash of national values" (see 2111230047). The motion argued that the case represents a threat to the U.S.'s constitutional freedoms and should be dismissed for a host of reasons, including the fact that Mexico does not have standing to sue the companies.

The proposed amici briefs address the bid to dismiss the case, with the groups taking myriad approaches. The gun violence prevention groups told the Massachusetts district court that "public nuisance" gives the lawsuit cover to stand and that Mexico's public nuisance allegations overcome the motion to toss the case. The Latin American and Caribbean countries, namely Antigua and Barbuda and Belize, while not directly speaking to the bid to dismiss, laid out the case for how the allegedly illegal firearms trafficking from the U.S. harms people throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. The court can mitigate these harms, the brief said.

"At this stage of the case, the Court need not concern itself with the proper form of any specific remedy; lay and expert discovery will, no doubt, develop evidence bearing on that inquiry," the countries said. "The amici curiae offer these observations on remedy at this stage only to assure the Court that it could craft a decree compelling the defendants to take commonsense steps that could not only ensure their compliance with state, federal, and international laws but also save many lives, not only in Mexico but also throughout the hemisphere."

The states -- Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oregon -- and the District of Columbia argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers "that allege knowing violations of state consumer protection laws." The states said that even if the court finds that this Act applies extraterritorially, the PLCAA preserves Mexico's right to bring actions alleging knowing violations of state statutes since two violations of such statutes have been alleged: the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the brief said.