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.

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.