Without any doubt, gun violence in Mexico is a deeply rooted and very complex problem, with many influencing factors. Such complex and interdependent factors that affect the issue are organized crime, Mexican drug cartels, an overall inefficient and biased Mexican justice system, socioeconomic differences, cultural differences, the existence of undocumented firearms from internal and external sources, gun trafficking, and the availability of illicit guns from the United States. To begin to solve the issue of gun violence and the effect of U.S. gun manufacturers on this critical issue in Mexico, and for the United States, requires a multi-faceted approach that tries to cope with and solve these interconnected challenges effectively.
Factors Contributing To Gun Violence In Mexico Besides U.S. Gun Trafficking
1. Drug Cartels and organized crime. Competition between fragmented and increasingly violent drug cartels has sparked a surge in armed confrontations. Beyond drug trafficking, cartels engage in extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking, illegal logging, and fuel theft, all of which contribute to the overall violence and rely on firearms. The growing focus on the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs, like fentanyl, has increased violence and competition among criminal cartels and gangs.
2. Inadequacies in the justice system. An alarming 95% impunity rate for violent crime means perpetrators often escape justice, which fuels a cycle of violence. Exemption from punishment or freedom from the consequences of an illegal gun action are examples. Widespread corruption within law enforcement and the judiciary weakens the state’s capacity to investigate and prosecute crimes.
3. Inequality, poverty, and limited opportunities: There appears to be a link between income inequality and higher rates of violent crime, especially in urban areas. Limited educational and economic opportunities, particularly for young people, lead some to criminal activities and joining cartels and gangs.
4. Undocumented Trafficking of firearms from many regions. Trafficking of undocumented firearms from other countries and regions, e.g., increased flows of grenades and RPG-7s from Central American countries and other regions. Guns can be diverted to the black market due to corruption and lax controls.
5. Prevalence of illegal guns and lax domestic gun control enforcement. These factors undermine enforcement, encourage corruption, and directly contribute to gun violence.
Mexico Sued Smith & Wesson And 6 Other U.S. Gun Manufacturers
In March 2025, Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other U.S. gun manufacturers for $10 billion in damages, alleging that the companies design and market their guns specifically to drug cartels that then use them in the “killing and maiming of children, judges, journalists, police, and ordinary citizens throughout Mexico.” Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor threw out Mexico’s case. He ruled that a federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), prohibited the country’s claims. However, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston revived the case, finding that Mexico had plausibly alleged that the U.S. gun manufacturers aided and abetted the illegal trafficking of their guns into Mexico. This decision allowed the case to proceed, prompting the gun manufacturers to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court. So the issue for us gun owners and manufacturers is:
ISSUE: Does the PLCAA Continue to Protect the Law-Abiding U.S. Gun Industry and U.S. Gun Owners as Intended?
Mexico’s Strict Availability Of Guns And Its Contention
Mexico has strict gun laws, and most American citizens don’t realize that Mexico has just two gun stores where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country’s powerful drug cartels every year. According to a recent report from The New York Times in May 2025, it appears that Mexico legally has two official outlets for the sale of firearms to civilians: one in Mexico City and a more recently established one in Monterrey. Both locations are run by the Mexican military (Secretariat of National Defense- SEDENA), and civilians must go through a strict application process to purchase firearms. The Mexico City store has existed for a longer period and is often erroneously referred to as the only gun store in Mexico in news articles. But a recent report indicates the existence of a second, newer store in Monterrey.
At least 70% of the Mexican weapons come from the United States, says the Mexican government. The Mexican lawsuit claims that U.S. companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. Mexico contended and argued that its case fell under an exception to the PLCAA, claiming the gun companies knowingly violated rules governing firearm sales and marketing. The U.S. companies rejected Mexico’s allegations, arguing the country’s lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they are responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The Mexican government alleged that the companies designed and marketed their weapons as military-style guns, knowing they would be attractive to criminal organizations. Mexico sought damages and requested court-mandated safety measures and sales restrictions for U.S. firearms. This had the tendency to raise U.S. gun prices, due to the law of supply and demand. The Supreme Court’s July 2025 decision hinged on the PLCAA of 2005.
The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act (PLCAA)
The PLCAA shields U.S. firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits when their products are used to commit crimes. It protects them from being legally liable when crimes have been committed with their guns. So, it provides a broad immunity from liability for gun-related civil lawsuits, with some exceptions. Wikipedia says that both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for “negligent entrustment” if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.
According to Wikipedia, “negligent entrustment” is a cause of action in U.S. Tort Law that arises where one party (“the entrustor”) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (“the entrustee”) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. Usually, the cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.
Violations Of Law Mexico Alleged Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers
There were a number of alleged violations of law in Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers. A major one was generally the U.S. gun manufacturers’ alleged role in enabling the illegal trafficking of firearms into Mexico, which contributed to cartel violence. The Mexican charge argued that the lawsuit fell under an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally shields gun manufacturers from liability for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products by third parties.
Mexico’s Allegations:
Aiding and abetting illegal sales: Mexico claimed that the gun manufacturers knowingly sold firearms to dealers who then illegally sold them to traffickers, who in turn smuggled them into Mexico. This included allegations where dealers allegedly sold guns to “straw purchasers” who bought guns on behalf of someone else legally unable to purchase a firearm, according to Wikipedia.
Negligence in establishing proper controls: Mexico alleged that the gun companies failed to establish adequate controls within their distribution networks to prevent illegal sales to Mexican traffickers.
Intentional design and marketing to appeal to criminals: Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their weapons in ways that were particularly appealing to criminals and cartel members, thereby stimulating demand among these groups, according to FindLaw. This included manufacturing military-style assault weapons and firearms with names or features appealing to cartels or Mexican culture, such as Colt’s Super “El Jefe” pistol.
Violations of laws prohibiting sales to straw purchasers and illegal export: Mexico alleged that the gun manufacturers violated laws prohibiting sales to straw purchasers and illegally exporting guns to Mexico, to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
Keep in mind the ultimate ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court was that the lawsuit did not meet the requirements of the PLCAA’s exception for knowingly violating a state or federal statute. The ruling that Mexico had not plausibly alleged that the gun manufacturers “aided and abetted” unlawful sales in routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The Court’s decision centered on the lack of specific, detailed evidence linking the manufacturers’ actions to specific illegal transactions or demonstrating an intent to facilitate criminal activity.
Mexico’s Examples Of U.S. Gun Manufacturer’s Marketing Tactics
Mexico’s lawsuit gave examples of the U.S. gun manufacturers’ marketing tactics that it alleged were designed to appeal to Mexican drug cartels and facilitate the illegal arms trade, thereby increasing violence within Mexico.
Examples included:
Military-style features and design: The lawsuit claimed that U.S. gun manufacturers intentionally designed and marketed firearms as military-style weapons, making them more attractive to cartels seeking high-powered firearms.
Targeted names, ornamentations, and engravings: Mexico pointed to specific firearms like Colt’s .38-caliber “Emiliano Zapata 1911” edition and the Super “El Jefe” pistol. The Zapata pistol featured an engraving of the Mexican revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata and a quote attributed to him. The included term “El Jefe” translates to “The Boss” and is used to refer to cartel leaders. Mexico argued that this U.S. naming and ornamentation of guns directly targeted a Mexican audience, including cartels and their members.
Emphasis on combat conversions, capabilities, and power: The lawsuit also cited U.S. marketing that focused on features like easy conversion to fully automatic fire and compatibility with high-capacity magazines, capabilities particularly desired by organized crime groups.
“Tactical Military Experience” marketing and advertising: Mexico’s legal team pointed to U.S. marketing that promoted a “Tactical Military Experience” and specific U.S. advertising toward civilians, which, according to the Mexican argument, further enticed drug cartels looking for military-grade weapons.
The Mexican government contended that such tactics, coupled with the alleged negligence in controlling their distribution systems, demonstrated a deliberate effort by U.S. gun manufacturers to profit from the illegal arms trade into Mexico.
The U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March 2025. While Mexico contended and argued that its case fell under an exception to the PLCAA, claiming the gun companies knowingly violated rules governing firearm sales and marketing, the U.S. Supreme Court denied it.
Mexico had argued that the companies’ marketing and distribution practices contributed to gun violence in Mexico, particularly by drug cartels. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, sided with the gun manufacturers, citing existing federal law that grants them broad immunity. The court ultimately concluded that Mexico’s complaint did not plausibly demonstrate that the U.S. manufacturers had engaged in conduct that would trigger the exception. Justice Elena Kagan, in her Supreme Court opinion, stated that the PLCAA provides broad immunity to gun companies and that Mexico’s allegations did not overcome this protection. She said that the manufacturer’s alleged conduct amounted to “indifference, rather than assistance” and that “a manufacturer of goods is not an accomplice to every unaffiliated retailer whom it fails to make follow the law”. The Supreme Court’s decision essentially upheld the existing U.S. legal framework that limits the liability of gun manufacturers, leaving the issue of gun trafficking and violence to be addressed through other means.
Transnational Gun Crime, Trafficking, And Violence
The lawsuit highlighted the significant issue of gun violence in Mexico, with implications and estimates implying that several thousand weapons are illegally trafficked from the U.S. to Mexico each year. But the case also spurred debate about the responsibility of gun manufacturers in the context of transnational crime and violence.
Conclusions
In conclusion, gun violence in Mexico is a complex and deeply rooted problem driven by a mixture of factors, including the major existence and influence of organized crime, drug cartels, inherent systemic weaknesses in the justice system, socioeconomic differences, cultural differences, and the availability of firearms from both internal and external sources. Addressing this problem requires a multifaceted approach that tries to solve and cope with these interconnected challenges effectively.
Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers highlights the ongoing challenges associated with the cross-border flow of firearms and the efforts to hold the gun industry accountable for its “alleged” role in contributing to violence in Mexico. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling blocked the Mexican lawsuit, it does not necessarily prevent future legal actions if Mexico can present more specific evidence of aiding and abetting or if the U.S. PLCAA were to be changed in the future. We must think positively, support the PLCAA, and appreciate our fine U.S. judicial system and its understanding and enforcement of our laws, based on facts.
Continued success for a strong United States of America and gun rights!
Read full article here