By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, has filed an amicus brief with the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to affirm a lower court decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the U.S. firearms industry by the Mexican government.
In their brief, which may be read here, the coalition of top state law enforcement officials contends, “Mexico advances a legal theory that is unsupported by fact or law. On the facts, American gun manufacturers are not responsible for gun violence in Mexico. Rather, policy choices by the Mexican government, policy failures in the United States, and independent criminal actions by third parties are alone responsible for gun violence in Mexico. And on the law, even if Mexico could establish but-for causation between the manufacture of guns in America and gun violence in Mexico, intervening criminal actions preclude finding proximate causation between a gun’s legal sale and the harm caused by it.”
Joining Attorney General Knudsen are attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. All are Republicans.
According to a statement from Knudsen’s office in Helena, “Mexico blamed the 2004 expiration of the U.S. ‘assault-weapons ban’ for a spike in gun violence in their country, but the homicide rate decreased in the three years after the American ban ended. The homicide rates didn’t increase until after Mexico declared war on the drug cartels in late 2006.”
Further in the statement, the attorneys general observe, “Mexico claims that American guns are ‘among the deadliest and most often recovered at crime scenes in Mexico,’ but only a minority of guns recovered at crime scenes in the country – some researchers believe about 12% while Mexican officials estimate it to be only 18% – can be traced back to the United States. Among those, many were sold to the Mexican military or law enforcement and ended up in cartel hands as the result of military or law enforcement desertion.”
It is not clear how Mexican authorities arrived at the conclusion U.S. guns are deadlier than firearms from other countries.
The brief also reminds the court, “Courts have consistently held that the criminal misuse of a firearm
breaks the causal connection between the manufacture of that weapon and the injury of a plaintiff.”
The document also recalls a surge of “junk” lawsuits filed by anti-gun groups cooperating with various municipalities around the country more than 20 years ago, which led to passage of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) during the Bush administration.
“This lawfare tactic reached a fever pitch in the late 1990s,” the attorneys general note, “when anti- gun groups started a coordinated strategy to bankrupt the firearms industry. In 1998, more than 30 local governments joined the anti-gun lobby and sued firearm companies and trade associations…Each case sought damages ranging from $100 million to $800 million. But the cost of defending against these suits alone had the potential to destroy the firearms industry—firearms companies spent upward of $1 million per day in legal fees while under attack…The anti-gun lobby knew that ‘the costs alone of defending these suits [would] eat up the gun companies.’”
However, the centerpiece of the amicus brief might be this paragraph, which lays blame at the feet of sof-on-criminal prosecutors:
“Considering the reluctance of American officials to hold gun traffickers accountable, it’s understandable that Mexico would pursue different routes for relief. But when American firearms end up in Mexico, it’s individuals, not gun manufacturers, who are responsible for getting them there. Mexico’s frustration with this state of affairs, understandable as it may be, is no excuse to shift the blame to gun manufacturers.”
