The lawsuit filed by Mexico against Smith & Wesson and other gun manufacturers is rapidly gaining attention as multiple U.S. states align with Mexico in a legal battle that could reshape the future of firearm liability. At the heart of the case is the claim that gun manufacturers knowingly facilitate illegal arms trafficking into Mexico, fueling cartel violence. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case, and the legal arguments being put forth highlight deep divides over gun industry accountability.
Mexico’s Claims Against Smith & Wesson

According to a press release from Congressman Dan Goldman’s office, Mexico argues that U.S. gun manufacturers are partially responsible for the widespread cartel violence within its borders. The lawsuit claims that over 500,000 American-made firearms are trafficked into Mexico annually, with 70% of crime-scene guns in Mexico traced back to the U.S. These weapons, Mexico asserts, enable cartels to commit violent crimes, attack law enforcement, and maintain territorial control.
Mexico contends that firearm companies are not protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) because they allegedly facilitate the illegal movement of guns across the border. Congressman Goldman and over 40 lawmakers have supported Mexico’s legal challenge, urging the Supreme Court to hold gun manufacturers accountable for their alleged role in aiding cartel violence.
Congressional Support for Mexico’s Lawsuit

The case has garnered significant political backing. Lawmakers including Senator Richard Blumenthal, Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, and Congressman Jamie Raskin co-signed an amicus brief in support of Mexico. The brief, submitted to the Supreme Court, argues that the PLCAA was never intended to shield gun manufacturers from liability when their actions contribute to illegal firearms trafficking.
According to the brief, firearm manufacturers must be held responsible when they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent their products from being illegally funneled into criminal organizations. Supporters claim that without accountability, gunmakers have no incentive to adopt responsible business practices, allowing their weapons to continue fueling violence both in the U.S. and abroad.
The Supreme Court Brief’s Argument Against Gun Industry Immunity

The combined amicus brief, filed by U.S. lawmakers, outlines the argument that PLCAA does not provide blanket immunity to gun manufacturers engaged in illegal or reckless business practices. The brief insists that while the law protects lawful commerce in arms, it does not shield gun companies from liability if they knowingly enable illicit firearm trafficking.
The brief also warns of far-reaching consequences if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Smith & Wesson. It argues that adopting the company’s legal stance would render the PLCAA’s exceptions meaningless, allowing even the most egregious industry misconduct to go unpunished. This, the signatories claim, would embolden firearm companies to ignore the risks posed by their distribution networks, further exacerbating gun-related violence.
A Strong Pushback from the Gun Rights Community

Not everyone sees the case the same way. William Kirk, host of the Washington Gun Law YouTube channel, has vocally criticized the lawsuit and the states backing Mexico. In his video All the States Trying to Help Mexico Beat Smith & Wesson, Kirk describes the case as “absurd,” arguing that it unfairly blames Smith & Wesson for Mexico’s internal crime problems.
Kirk takes particular issue with the involvement of several U.S. states – including Massachusetts, California, and New York – that have submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mexico’s position. He highlights the irony that Massachusetts, where Smith & Wesson is headquartered, is supporting legal action that could severely impact a major employer in its own state.
Does the PLCAA Protect Smith & Wesson?

One of Kirk’s main arguments is that the lawsuit should be dismissed outright under the PLCAA, which explicitly prevents lawsuits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed by third parties. He argues that Smith & Wesson lawfully manufactures and sells firearms to retailers who follow all U.S. regulations. If those firearms are later smuggled into Mexico, Kirk insists, the blame should fall on criminals and traffickers, not the company that legally produced them.
A Poorly Written Brief

The gun rights advocate also takes aim at the legal reasoning behind the states’ amicus brief, calling it “one of the most poorly written and horribly reasoned briefs” he has ever read. According to Kirk, the brief fails to clearly outline any direct illegal conduct by Smith & Wesson, relying instead on vague accusations that the company should have foreseen the illegal actions of third parties.
A Question of Foreseeability

One of the central legal questions in the case is whether Smith & Wesson could have reasonably foreseen that their firearms would end up in cartel hands. The amicus brief argues that firearm manufacturers should implement stronger safeguards to prevent illegal trafficking. However, Kirk and other gun rights supporters argue that holding gunmakers liable for crimes committed with their products is akin to suing car manufacturers for drunk driving accidents.
If foreseeability is used as a standard for liability, some fear that it could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for lawsuits against all sorts of industries. Could car manufacturers be sued if their vehicles are used in crimes? Could alcohol companies be sued for the actions of intoxicated drivers? Critics worry that the logic behind Mexico’s lawsuit could extend far beyond firearms.
Implications for the Firearms Industry

If Mexico prevails, the ruling could have devastating consequences for American gun manufacturers. A successful lawsuit could lead to increased liability for firearm companies, making them vulnerable to lawsuits not just from foreign governments but from U.S. municipalities and states seeking damages for gun-related crimes.
A ruling in Mexico’s favor might also embolden other nations to sue U.S. gunmakers, potentially leading to international legal battles over firearm exports and trafficking. This could force major changes in how American firearm companies operate, potentially leading to stricter regulations and oversight.
What This Case Says About U.S.-Mexico Relations

This lawsuit also highlights broader tensions between the U.S. and Mexico regarding drug cartel violence and arms trafficking. The U.S. has long accused Mexico of failing to control cartel activity, while Mexico frequently blames the easy availability of American firearms for exacerbating its crime problem.
Congressman Dan Goldman’s press release underscores this tension, noting that while U.S.-made guns flood Mexico, cartels send fentanyl north into American communities. This reciprocal cycle of violence and drug trafficking has created a complex geopolitical issue that extends far beyond the courtroom.
A Legal Battle with Major Consequences

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, both sides are watching closely. For those supporting Mexico, this lawsuit is about holding the gun industry accountable and preventing further violence. For those opposing it, including gun rights advocates like William Kirk, it’s an attempt to shift blame away from criminals and onto lawful businesses.
Significant Implications of the Ruling

The decision in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos could set a precedent for future lawsuits involving firearm manufacturers, shaping the legal landscape for years to come. Whether the Court rules in favor of Mexico or Smith & Wesson, the outcome will be felt far beyond the courtroom, with significant implications for gun laws, international relations, and corporate liability in the United States.
Find out more by reading Congressman Dan Goldman’s press release here, the Supreme Court brief here, and by watching the Washington Gun Law video here.

A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.