At least 18 amicus briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court this week in support of U.S. gunmakers seeking dismissal of Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit that alleges the manufacturers are “aiding and abetting” drug cartels south of the border, including one brief signed by more than half of the country’s attorneys general.
The brief, primarily authored by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudson’s office and co-signed by 26 other AGs along with the Arizona legislature, argues that “Mexico’s policy decisions have caused cartel violence within its borders,” contending that the Mexican government has “adopted a conscious policy of refusing to address that violence.”
Knudsen and the other parties maintain that a foreign nation “should not be permitted to effectively deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights to alleviate the negative consequences of its own policy choices,” particularly when the Mexican government has failed to combat the cartel violence, instead adopting a “hugs, not bullets” policy.
Mexico’s lawsuit contradicts claims made by its former president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, that crime went down under his leadership and crime in Mexico wasn’t a problem. From 2018 through the end of his term this year, violence increased exponentially, according to multiple reports, The Center Square reported.
Obrador’s “hugs not bullets” policy with the cartels led to one of the bloodiest elections in Mexican history this past election cycle. Obrador then blamed Americans for the violence, as dozens of candidates were murdered in Mexico allegedly by the cartels, The Center Square reported.
While claiming that America’s “drug problem” is not Mexico’s problem, Obrador blamed U.S. gun manufacturers for cartel gun violence and cartel weapons trafficking and smuggling. Weapons trafficking and smuggling are felonies in the U.S. for which cartel operatives are prosecuted by U.S. authorities. American gun manufacturers do not sell their products to transnational criminal organizations, and no data supports Mexico’s claims, the AGs argue.
As the AGs note, “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. Nor can it impose its policy preferences on the United States by judicial fiat. This Court should reverse the First Circuit’s decision.
I’d add that Mexico could quit legally importing U.S. firearms for use by the military and police if those guns are such a concern. Last year Mexico bought more than $50 million worth of U.S.-made small arms, including more than 10,000 military rifles and more than $17 million in ammunition.
It’s unknown how many of those legally-purchased firearms wound up in the hands of drug cartels south of the border, but Mexico has had problems keeping track of guns used by the military and police for years now. In 2009, for instance, a State Department audit found that 26% of legally imported arms were diverted into the hands of cartel members and criminals. While Mexico might want to blame gun makers like Smith & Wesson for those diversions, the truth is that it’s entirely up to Mexico to ensure that those guns remain in the possession of their armed forces and police.
Over the next few days we’ll be taking a closer look at some of the other amicus briefs filed in Smith & Wesson, et al v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos this week, including a deep dive into the briefs submitted by the U.S. House of Representatives and Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Darrell Issa, and 37 other members of Congress that’s the subject of today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.
Oral arguments in the lawsuit won’t take place until next March, but the justices will have plenty of reading to do between now and then, and the arguments presented by the AGs, Congress, and Second Amendment groups offer multiple compelling reasons for the Court to reject Mexico’s claims and dismiss its lawsuit as a violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Read the full article here
