NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amicus brief in support of Smith & Wesson, Inc., with the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Smith & Wesson, Inc., and other industry members, petitioned the Court to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s decision to allow the frivolous lawsuit to proceed. Mexico’s lawsuit seeks $10 billion in damages from several U.S. firearm manufacturers for the crimes committed by narco-terrorist cartels in Mexico. Mexico alleges that U.S.-based firearm manufacturers are liable for the harm caused by lawlessness in their country and the government corruption that allows it to fester.

NSSF argues that the First Circuit erred in its decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) specifically prohibits lawsuits of this nature that intend to saddle firearm businesses with the liability for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties.

“Congress enacted the PLCAA in 2005 to put a stop to these efforts to use novel tort theories to destroy a lawful industry and the fundamental rights it facilitates,” the brief states, later adding, “Mexico’s counsel was the architect of many of the lawsuits that were brought before the PLCAA. And he has been quite candid that this lawsuit is yet another effort to work ‘outside’ the ‘constrain[ts]’ of ‘U.S. politics,’ the Second Amendment, and this Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen, which (in his view) ‘were wrongly decided and need to be reversed.’”

NSSF’s brief to the Supreme Court also points out that Mexico’s lawsuit infringes on U.S. sovereignty by attempting to dictate the limits of Second Amendment rights and how the U.S. firearm industry is regulated. NSSF specifies that Mexico’s lawsuit is “focused on trying to impose a de facto ban” on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) – or the AR-15-style rifle – and standard capacity magazines.

“As explained here and in petitioners’ brief, Mexico’s lawsuit implicates almost every hot-button issue in U.S. firearms policy and would leverage our court system to allow a foreign government to pretermit a range of debates currently underway in Congress and statehouses throughout the Nation,” the amicus states. “Rejecting that effort, and the First Circuit’s decision rubber-stamping it, will send an unmistakable signal to cities, states, and lower courts intent on undermining the Second Amendment—which is exactly what Congress enacted the PLCAA to prevent.”

The PLCAA was signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush with broad bipartisan support by Congress. The law was spurred by numerous frivolous lawsuits orchestrated by gun control groups to circumvent Congress and put firearm companies out of business based on the criminal misuse of firearms by remote individuals who lack respect for both life and law. The PLCAA has been repeatedly upheld as Constitutional by federal courts.