Judge Tosses Mexico's $10 Billion Lawsuit For 6 Of 8 Named American Gun-Makers

Authored by Stephen Katte via The Epoch Times,

A Massachusetts District Court Judge has dismissed Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against six out of the eight named American gun manufacturers that the country argues are responsible for firearms flooding south across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Initially filed in 2021, Mexico argued that the U.S. companies, all of which have denied wrongdoing, were undermining Massachusetts’s strict gun laws by selling weapons they knew had a chance of being smuggled across the border.

As a result, the Mexican government argued the defendants should be held responsible for a significant portion of the country’s crime—many in which the criminals employed the use of U.S.-made guns. This, in turn, has led to declining investment, economic activity, and higher spending on law enforcement, Mexico said.

The government said more than 500,000 guns are illegally trafficked annually to Mexico from the United States, more than 68 percent of which are made by companies being sued.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor found that Mexico had not shown enough evidence to prove that the activities of six defendant companies in Massachusetts were connected to gun crime in Mexico, citing jurisdictional problems.

As a result, he dismissed the lawsuit against Sturm Ruger & Company, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Glock, Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Century International Arms, and Beretta U.S.A. Corp. Two defendants remain: Smith & Wesson Brands and wholesaler Witmer Public Safety Group.

Smith & Wesson Brands and Witmer Public Safety Group have not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

According to Saylor, the core question for jurisdictional purposes is whether Mexico’s claims against the six moving defendants “arise” from their business transactions in Massachusetts.

However, he says the connection to Massachusetts, in this case, is “gossamer-thin at best” because Mexico’s government is “obviously not a citizen of Massachusetts,” and none of the defendants operate or have a principal place of business in the state.

“None of the alleged injuries occurred in Massachusetts. No Massachusetts citizen is alleged to have suffered any injury,” Saylor said in the ruling.

“And plaintiff has not identified any specific firearm, or set of firearms, that was sold in Massachusetts and caused injury in Mexico.”

Saylor also dismissed the argument that, statistically, it was likely that some firearms sold in Massachusetts were eventually illegally trafficked to Mexico.

Steve Shadowen, a lawyer representing Mexico, responded on behalf of the Mexican government, saying it was disappointed with the decision and would be considering alternative legal options such as appealing or refiling the case in other courthouses.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department said in a statement that the ruling would allow the lawsuit to proceed against the two remaining defendants while other options are considered for the defendants who were dismissed.

Lawrence Keane, general counsel of industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation, welcomed Saylor’s decision to reject Mexico’s “obvious forum-shopping,” and expressed optimism that the U.S. Supreme Court would toss the rest of the case.

A Glock 17 9 mm (L) and a Sig Sauer P322 .22-caliber handgun are propped up by stands on a glass countertop in front of a wall of rifles in Lawful Defense in Gainesville, Fla., on April 19, 2023. (Nanette Holt/The Epoch Times)

After the case was filed in 2021, six of the U.S. arms manufacturers filed to dismiss Mexico’s claims based on a 2005 U.S. law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The legislation shields gun manufacturers from damages “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm.

In 2022, a federal judge ruled to dismiss the case on those grounds. However, Mexico appealed the ruling and in January, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts revived the lawsuit on the basis that the PLCAA does not apply in this instance.