MA GUN LAWYER

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. Mexico had alleged that these companies facilitated illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, contributing to widespread violence within its borders.

The Court held that the lawsuit was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers and sellers from liability when their products are misused by third parties. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court, stated that Mexico’s complaint failed to plausibly allege that the gunmakers knowingly aided and abetted unlawful firearms sales. The Court emphasized that mere indifference or failure to prevent misuse does not meet the legal standard for aiding and abetting under PLCAA.

This decision reversed a 2024 ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the lawsuit to proceed under PLCAA’s “predicate exception.” The Supreme Court found that Mexico’s allegations did not demonstrate that the manufacturers took affirmative actions to facilitate illegal sales or intended to promote criminal activities.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas suggested that future cases should clarify what constitutes a “violation” under PLCAA’s exceptions, potentially requiring a prior adjudication of guilt or liability. Justice Jackson noted that Mexico’s complaint lacked specific allegations of statutory violations, relying instead on general industry practices.

Of great note, speaking for the entire Court, Justice Kagan wrote:

“As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of ‘military style’ assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR–15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.”

A couple of observations are in order. First, the fact that yes, these rifles are “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers” is the primary reason why, under Heller and Bruen, the sale and possession of these rifles are, in fact, protected by the 2nd Amendment. Also, Justice Kagan’s logical observation that “[t]he manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too” only begs the larger question:

So then, how can peaceful Americans who are not harming anyone with their firearms be penalized simply because criminals “like those guns too”?