The lawsuit is awaiting a decision that could come any minute from District Judge Dennis Saylor, Massachusetts. Here are ten things that may surprise you about the suit.
1. American justice system heavies are supporting the lawsuit.
Fourteen US attorneys general, including the city of Washington, DC are supporting the suit as friends of the court, having signed on to an amicus brief. Indirect support comes as governmental entities divest from arms manufacturers. One administration said it was a business decision, because the manufacturers are at risk for too many lawsuits. Even if they win, the lawsuits will be costly. But some feel the main motive is to eliminate the optics of being invested in arms that are being trafficked illegally.
2. The text of the lawsuit is in plain, easy-to-understand English, not legalese.
It is surprisingly readable. Perhaps that is part of their strategy to build support. And you don’t need to read the whole thing. To get the jist, just read the bullet points on the first page. Careful, they’re so juicy, they might lure you on. https://www.gob.mx/sre/documentos/full-text-of-the-civil-lawsuit-filed-by-the-mexican-government-in-the-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-massachusetts
3. Unprecedented? Not exactly.
Precedents may give this case extra weight. There are the lawsuit against Century Arms for the 2019 shooting in Gilroy, California and the $33 million settlement reached by families in the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook school with Remington.
4. The demand for $10 billion American dollars is not just pie in the sky.
The Mexican government is the injured party suing the manufacturers, so it is able to quantify the damage done in a way they expect to stand up in court. The number is, in part, tied to the deaths caused by the illicit trade. Mexico estimates this amounted to over 17,000 homicides in 2019 alone.
5. The main accusation is willfull neglect in selling to distributors who lavish military-grade weapons on the cartels.
That means the suit is not against legal sales of weapons. The allegation is that the manufacturers have been “knowingly facilitating the trafficking” of arms to organized crime.
6. There are U.S. laws in the works that may strengthen Mexico’s hand.
On the federal level, the “Stop Illegal Firearms Trafficking Act” casts the lawsuit, indirectly, in a favorable light.
California’s new law allowing private citizens to sue people or companies involved in illegal ams trade signifies a change in the political winds. Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting said about the law, “This creates a private right of action that allows almost anyone to bring a lawsuit against those who manufacture, distribute, transport, import or sell illegal assault weapons, rifles, ghost guns or ghost gun kits.” This is also a slap back at the Texas law allowing private actions agains persons involved in abortion, as if to say, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Of course, major successful suits against polluters, prescription opiate distributors, and the tobacco industry are historically important.
7. The flow of weapons is increasingly well-documented.
Mexico argues that U.S. gun companies traffic somewhere between 342,000 and 597,000 firearms to its country each year but say the true cost is “incalculable” according to the legal consultant of the Mexican Foreign Ministry, Alejandro Celorio, who is in charge of the lawsuit. Means of tracking these weapons include logging their serial numbers.
Even the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says that seven out of ten guns in Mexico can be traced back to the United States.
Ioan Grillo, an author who has done extensive research into the matter of arms trafficking by major manufacturers, has brought a tremendous amount of solid information to light. (Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, https://amzn.to/3ahKaz9)
When cartel boss Guzmán’s son was captured by Mexican law enforcement, the Sinaloa Cartel went wild, leading AMLO (the President of Mexico) to give up the captive. The government found that major arms used in the incident had been acquired through the internet from the United States.
Just this June, a .30-cal machine gun and 20,000 rounds of ammunition were intercepted by U.S. officers at the Nogales border.
8. The accusation is multi-pronged.
Nevada’s Consul of Mexico, Julian Escutia, says the suit is based on a “chain of illicit practices.” One is marketing designed to attract cartel members. They place sayings an images from Mexican heroes and icons on the weapons.
9. The U.S. laws giving impunity to the manufacturers probably won’t stop the lawsuit.
Mexico feels the suit will probably stand up, as they are relying on Massachusetts’s choice of law, or governing law clause. This applies when the parties are from different states. It permits them to choose which state’s laws apply.
This way, Mexico hopes to overcome the liability protections the U.S. created in 2004, protecting gun companies (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA). They hope it will cause Mexico’s laws to bear force in the suit.
And… The pace may pick up.
Covid slowed things down, but backlogs are clearing and the district judge is about to make a decision.