Mexico Parrots Democrat Lawfare Despite SCOTUS PLCAA Rejection

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that anti-Second Amendment groups run by the Democrat party have been working closely with Mexican officials to attack American gun rights and subvert the U.S. Constitution. This collusion with a foreign government recently set the stage for the Supreme Court’s rejection of our southern neighbor’s $10 billion lawsuit which aimed to cripple the American firearms industry by seeking an outrageous judgement against Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gun manufacturers. But Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, ever willing to blame her own country’s abject failure and corruption on others, another strategy on loan from Democrat cohorts, has decided to push forward with an almost identical lawsuit, this time targeting gun dealers and distributors in Arizona. 

Nobody knows more about abusing the U.S. judicial system than Democrats, and all the big names came out to bat for Mexico in its failed Supreme Court challenge of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law enacted in 2005 providing firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers broad immunity from civil lawsuits arising from criminal or unlawful misuse of their products. In both cases, the Mexican government, aka the legal arm of the narco-terrorist drug cartels, claims its damages stem from the illegal trafficking of firearms by the same cartels they work with and take bribes from under their normal course of business. 

So, who are the “American” rats on that corrupt Mexican pirate ship, you ask? Let’s start with the Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV), founded by lawyers from the Brady gun control organization. This group represents the Mexican government and, as such, has been required to register with the Department of Justice as a foreign agent of Mexico. But I promised multiple big names in treasonous subversion, so pick a finger and give a not-so-warm salute to Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, both of whom filed amicus briefs in support of Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers.

With obvious connections to the Democrat lawfare apparatus, what is shocking is the unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision rejecting any validity of the now-defunct Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos case, with none other than Elana Kagan (I save the title “Justice” for the likes of Clarence Thomas) writing the Court’s opinion that the PLCAA prohibits such a lawsuit. You know an argument must be extraordinarily outlandish if dyed-in-the-wool leftist activist judges like those on the Supreme Court reject a challenge that could cause injury to the Second Amendment. 

What is the extraordinarily outlandish legal theory behind Mexico’s argument? I’m glad you asked. In the Smith & Wesson case, Mexico claimed that American gun manufacturers “aided and abetted” illegal smuggling of firearms into the country that fell into the hands of criminals and narco-terrorists. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this broadly generalized claim as not meeting the legal standard since Mexico did not even bother to allege that U.S. gun manufacturers participated or helped to succeed in any of the crimes committed. Further, the Court made clear that common firearm designs that appeal to the American shooting community do not create liability just because criminals might also find them attractive, and that the knowledge that “bad actors” exist does not equate to aiding and abetting them.

“There is another pending lawsuit… This one was against gun manufacturers. There is another lawsuit that is against gun distributors and gun stores. That is the one that we will be working with our legal team to move forward,” said Mexican President Sheinbaum in an early June press conference. 

That continuing challenge is known as Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, Inc., which proposes shockingly similar theories of liability as the first case, and is aimed at five federally licensed Arizona firearms dealers. There are multiple problems with this lawsuit, starting with the fact that the PLCAA protects distributors, dealers, and importers alongside manufacturers. But the left is known for refiling lawsuits with minor alterations to tie up issues in court for years while using lawfare and taxpayer dollars to mount a draining financial assault on their opponents. This makes the ongoing situation not particularly unique when you accept that it is nothing more than Democrat party collusion with a foreign entity against American companies, jobs, and liberties. 

In the current complaint, Mexico alleges that these Arizona dealers “systematically participate in trafficking military-style weapons and ammunition to drug cartels in Mexico by supplying gun traffickers,” and that said dealers “know or should know that their reckless and unlawful business practices — including straw sales and bulk and repeat sales of military-style weapons — supply dangerous criminals in Mexico and the U.S.”

The problem with what are essentially “straw purchase” allegations is that all retail firearms purchases are preceded by a Form 4473, as required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In executing the form, buyers must confirm that they are not prohibited by law from possessing firearms and that they are purchasing the gun for themself and not another individual. Accompanying the Form 4473 is a required background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Additionally, sales of multiple handguns and sporting rifles happening in states that border Mexico are required by law to be reported to local law enforcement and the ATF.

Mexico’s lawsuit doesn’t even attempt to allege that these procedures were somehow violated, instead relying on a fool’s argument that dealers sold the firearms, that they were eventually recovered at Mexican crime scenes, and therefore, liability exists because the retailers should have known the guns would ultimately end up in the hands of Mexican cartels. Adding further insult to stupidity, the complaint does not even identify the firearms that Mexico claims were sold unlawfully and later recovered at crime scenes. The notion is laughable at best, and I’d question the intelligence of their attorneys if I weren’t sure this was all a lawfare scam to inflict financial damage on the industry. Trace back the funds paying for Mexico’s legal services, and I’d be willing to bet you’ll find a lot of American tax dollars.  

Such generalized complaints, taking more issue with American gun laws than they do with the companies being sued, are dubious efforts at best that do not address the fact that Mexico, in no way, met a legal standard by which it could claim manufacturers even have the ability to predetermine which licensed retailers may run fast and loose with firearm purchases, a disposition every dealer I know rejects completely in favor of maintaining good standing with the ATF and the Department Of Justice (DOJ). In a similar fashion, mechanisms do not exist for dealers to predict who will lie on a Form 4473, and Mexico doesn’t seem to have any suggestions on the matter either, other than demanding crippling and nonsensical judgements from companies targeted by Democrats and their sycophantically useful idiots. 

In February 2024, Arizona defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Mexican government lacked standing and that the PLCAA prohibited such a case from proceeding. But never underestimate the ability of an Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge, in this case Rosemary Marquez, to reject a cogent argument with a strong legal foundation in favor of one that would cause damage to the firearms industry and continue to syphon tax dollars away from the American public. Marquez’s rejection of PLCAA protections was not rooted in law, nor did it take into account reason or a basic understanding of mathematical logic. Instead, she wrote that she was simply “unconvinced” that state laws and the Second Amendment “negate recognizing a duty of care.” Exactly what duty of care does she refer to here? None. You don’t need to if you’ve already corruptly predetermined your decision based on the matter at hand. 

Of course, the Mexican cartel problem is more than just a Mexican problem, as crime, drugs, and violence flow across the border much like the Rio Grande. Despite the Mexican government’s petulant abuse of the American judicial system under the guise of public safety, this political theater has been debunked, with Sheinbaum rejecting President Trump’s offer in May to have U.S. troops help track down and bring narco-terrorists to justice for their crimes. Sheinbaum was quoted as being concerned for Mexico’s sovereignty; however, as The Buckeye Firearms Association best said, “President Sheinbaum wasn’t concerned about U.S. sovereignty, however, when her lawyers argued their case before the U.S. Supreme Court and she’s not concerned about it with her country’s lawsuit against Arizona firearm retailers.”