Listen to What Next:

Tweet Share Share Comment

I called up Champe Barton from over at the Trace to talk about a totally new way to think about gun control. But honestly, I can’t shake the very first thing he told me—a fact that seems to explain just how hard it is to prevent gun violence in the first place: “If you want to buy a gun in Mexico, there’s one gun store, and it’s on an army base. There’s just one, in the entire country.”

I live in a country, the United States, where there are twice as many gun stores as there are post offices, so it kind of blows my mind that just across the border things work like this. To get a gun legally in Mexico? You go through months of background checks. You apply for a temporary permit. And then you go to that military base. When the L.A. Times visited a few years back, the store sold just 38 guns a day to civilians.

And all this is even more shocking when you consider the kind of news stories Americans are used to hearing about Mexico. Since 2010, more than 200,000 people have been killed by guns there. I asked Barton to explain that disconnect. “The biggest issue is just that there’s thousands of American guns that are crossing the border every year into Mexico,” he said. “It comes out to somewhere between 360,000 to 597,000 guns a year that come over the border.”

Advertisement

And Mexico is pissed—so pissed, in fact, that it’s taking American gunmakers to court. With this case, the Mexican government is arguing we should think about American gunmakers the same way we think about tobacco companies or opioid distributors—as an industry that really should know better. “This Mexico case was an example to me of a new, fresh attempt at getting at this problem,” Barton said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

On a recent episode of What Next, we discussed this case of the Mexican government vs. American guns. Can a lawsuit do what politicians haven’t? Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Mary Harris: For the last couple of years, the Mexican government has been moving forward with this lawsuit against U.S.-based gun manufacturers. Tell me who exactly Mexico is suing here?

Advertisement

Champe Barton: Mexico is suing seven gun manufacturers and one gun distributor. The seven gun manufacturers are manufacturers whose guns most frequently turn up at crime scenes in Mexico. These are some of the biggest gunmakers in America: Colt, Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta. Huge names. They’re suing these companies, basically alleging that they have aided and abetted gun-trafficking operations, knowingly, with the intent of profiting off of that market.

Do they have proof that these manufacturers are helping drive the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico?

We can’t say if they have proof yet. You don’t have to prove a case before you bring it. What they have proved to a judge is that their allegations are plausible. If you look at the data on gun violence in Mexico relative to gun production in the U.S., you can see a pretty clear relationship between gun homicides on Mexican soil and U.S. gun production. As gun production goes up in the U.S., gun homicides go up in Mexico, generally. The central point is that there is a clear relationship here between what goes on in the U.S. in terms of its gun market and what goes on in Mexico in terms of its gun violence problem.

Advertisement

Advertisement

How exactly does a gun move from a U.S.-based manufacturer across the border to Mexico?

Advertisement

The market is basically the exact same as it would be for a U.S. gun buyer, up until the point of that final transaction. So the manufacturer makes the weapon, they send it usually to a wholesaler. The wholesaler will sell it to a dealer. The dealer will then put it in their shop, and someone can come in and buy it. In the case of the guns that are trafficked, very often, what’s happening is that people are going into those stores. They’re buying the guns with the intent of trafficking them, or because they’ve been tapped by someone who is working with a gun-trafficking ring to buy the gun. And then once that gun is purchased, it’s then smuggled south of the border, any number of ways. The exact path that the guns take after they leave the store is unclear. What is clear is that a lot of these stores wind up selling suspiciously large quantities or suspiciously frequent quantities, in suspicious areas, to the same people who they should have reason to believe are doing something that’s against the law.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Is anyone asking any questions about this along the way, like, I don’t know, the ATF or, like, the gun distributors themselves?

For a long time, gun manufacturers and gun wholesalers have refused to agree that they should police their distribution chains more rigorously and that that would reduce gun violence. The ATF, though, does ask questions about this. There are requirements for gun stores to notify the ATF when there’s been multiple sales of a handgun, for example, to the same buyer in a short time frame. Those things do happen. But in the grand scheme of things what has to occur is that these things need to be caught in the moment. It’s hard for an agency like the ATF to keep tabs of so many gun stores in the U.S. So, they’re only conducting inspections something like once every seven years of most gun dealers. That’s a pretty light regulatory regime for those stores that are intending to do dirty business.

In this lawsuit, what’s Mexico asking for?

Advertisement

Advertisement

The fundamental legal claim that the Mexican government is making is that they should be entitled to financial damages and some sort of injunctive relief for the expenses that they have had to incur to try to combat this problem. And so the argument basically goes: The Mexican government has had to beef up its police forces and its military forces. There’s been extraordinary costs in their judicial system. And all of those costs are associated with this problem. And their claim is that problem is caused by the gunmakers’ intentional profiteering off of this trafficking network.

Advertisement

A lot of people compare this lawsuit to tobacco litigation. How does that litigation compare with what’s happening here?

The general philosophy behind a lot of those lawsuits was that you had an industry that was selling a product that was causing harm to the general public, and that industry was not doing everything within its power, and not even doing the things that it knew it could do, to limit the harm that its product caused the public. If you think about it in those terms, it’s very similar to what is being alleged of the gunmakers.

Advertisement

To me, it actually seems so similar to the opioid litigation that moved forward recently because the allegations in some of that litigation were basically that drugmakers had data showing opioids were streaming into certain areas of the country in really concerning ways, and they just didn’t investigate what was going on.

There was a time in the U.S. in which that comparison was almost perfect, because it used to be that when a firearm was traced, the ATF needed to pick up a phone and dial the manufacturer and inform them, Hey, this gun with this serial number turned up at a crime scene. Who did you sell it to? And then they would have to say, Oh, we’ve sold it to this wholesaler, and they would go on down the chain like that. What’s happened since around 2000 is that the ATF essentially set up servers in the database of manufacturers and wholesalers, and they use those servers to ping the acquisition and disposition logs at these companies so that they don’t have to make a phone call. Now, I don’t know specifically what the rules are about the companies who are agreeing to these policies actually seeing the pings that they’re getting, for example, for guns that have turned up. Like, it may be something that they’re not allowed to look at. I just don’t. But I do know that data is available. It’s there. And I cannot imagine that if they wanted to look at it, that the ATF would refuse to allow them to look at it.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

With opioids, I think that the drug manufacturers were required to intervene in some way when they saw increased use like this. But it sounds like with the guns it’s a little more fuzzy.

There’s certainly no requirement in the U.S. for the gunmakers to do anything of the sort. They do not have to police their distribution. The attitude of the industry has always been hands off. The law enforcement side of this equation is the ATF’s job. It’s not for us to do anything about. So if the ATF tells us to stop selling somewhere, we’ll stop selling. But if the ATF hasn’t told us there’s a problem, we’re not going to find one and act on our own volition here.

Advertisement

I want to talk about the people who brought this gun case. The case was obviously brought by Mexico against the U.S manufacturers, but they’re being helped by American lawyers, right?

Jon Lowy used to be lead counsel at Brady, the prominent gun violence prevention group. But Jon Lowy has been doing this sort of litigation for decades. He is currently involved in other lawsuits that are making very similar allegations to the government of Mexico. The city of Gary, Indiana, has a suit right now, and that suit’s been going on for 20-some odd years. And he recently split off from Brady and founded his own gun violence prevention group called Global Action on Gun Violence.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Jon Lowy is an interesting character to me because when he was at the Brady Center, he wrote this report, and this was way back in 2009, talking about the ways that gun manufacturing in the U.S. is connected to crime in Mexico. And at the time, one of the real focuses of this report was weak gun laws in the U.S.—basically saying weak gun laws are making it so that guns from the U.S. are going to Mexico. So why didn’t he want to fix the weak American laws? Like, this lawsuit isn’t going after the laws. It’s going after the gun manufacturers.

Advertisement

I don’t think that those two things are mutually exclusive, first of all. Second of all, there is a calculus that anybody who is interested in addressing this problem has to make, and that calculus is about what action is going to most efficiently deal with this problem and which has the potential for the greatest reduction of harm, basically. It has been an obvious—so obvious it almost doesn’t need saying—thing in the U.S. that gun violence prevention legislation is just a total nonstarter politically. There’s just such a model from these other corporate accountability movements that we’ve been discussing—the opioid litigation, the tobacco litigation, the automotive litigation—that shows that there is an avenue for justice through the courts, generally, when corporations’ products are associated with such widespread harm. And the calculus that has been made by a lot of these people who are involved in these lawsuits is that this is a quicker, more efficient, and potentially more effective way to reduce gun violence.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Let’s talk about some challenges this lawsuit is going to face as it moves through the courts. The first is whether this lawsuit can move forward at all. Why wouldn’t this lawsuit be able to move forward? What would keep it out of a courtroom?

The lawsuit was dismissed once in 2022 on account of this federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, which was passed in the early aughts as a way to get rid of a bunch of lawsuits that were making very similar allegations to the Mexican government. This law was passed to essentially get rid of those lawsuits, to say that you cannot sue a gunmaker as a result of harms caused by people who have committed crimes with their weapons.

Advertisement

Advertisement

It seems like a pretty nice piece of legislation if you’re a gun manufacturer.

It has been a very nice piece of legislation for them, and it has stifled the kind of legal maturation that I was describing earlier. The litigation against the opioid manufacturers, to come back to that comparison, didn’t start in 2015. It didn’t start when opioid deaths were all over the news. It started in the late 1990s. It started at the same time that they were trying to sue gunmakers. And most of those just weren’t successful, because the legal theories that they were working with hadn’t been worked out yet; there was compelling arguments to dismiss these cases. And over time, people kept trying to bring these lawsuits because the problem persisted. And eventually they settled on a legal theory that allowed those suits to proceed.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Mexican government has attempted a novel legal strategy to bring this case forward. And not a lot of plaintiffs within the U.S. have had an opportunity to make those same attempts. So, that law has kept industry accountability off the books for the past two decades almost.

Didn’t the Sandy Hook parents sue the gun manufacturers? What made their case different?

Yes, they did. The Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act has a few exceptions: If a gunmaker sells a defective product, for example, then then they can be sued; if a gunmaker breaches a contract, they can be sued. The exception that gets targeted the most for plaintiffs who are trying to hold gunmakers accountable for gun violence and for negligent distribution practices is this exception known as the predicate exception, which allows for lawsuits when they’re brought based on harm caused by the violation of a state or federal statute that is “applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.” Basically what that means is that if you’re going to sue a gunmaker, you have to sue them saying that you were harmed because they violated a law that’s specifically related to the sale or marketing of firearms.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

And so what the Sandy Hook parents did was they sued, saying that they were harmed by the gunmaker’s violation of an unfair trade practices law in Connecticut. And the judge agreed that that law applied to the sale or marketing of firearms.

Subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts

Get more news from Mary Harris every weekday.

View Transcript

How is the Mexican government arguing that their case should be allowed to proceed?

Originally the Mexican government tried to argue that the PLCAA should just not apply at all because they’re a foreign government, and it shouldn’t apply to foreign governments. That argument was dismissed by this federal district court in Massachusetts in 2022. They appealed, and in January of this year, they were successful on that appeal in arguing not that PLCAA should not apply but that they do fit one of PLCAA’s exceptions, namely the same exception that the Sandy Hook families targeted. And the reason for that is that the Mexican government has alleged that the gunmakers have violated laws having to do with straw purchasing, laws having to do with exporting firearms without a license, laws having to do with selling firearms without a license. And they’ve basically said that these gunmakers were in some way conspirators with stores along the border that have participated in these trafficking rings

Advertisement

If this lawsuit does move forward, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk. One argument the industry makes here is, Listen, Mexico needs to get its own house in order. Control your gangs. The problem is not the guns from us. The problem is the people bringing the guns in. What do you make of that argument?

Popular in News & Politics

  1. John Roberts Just Dropped the Hammer on Rogue, Lawless Trump Judges
  2. Why the World of Typewriter Collectors Splits Down the Middle When These Machines Come Up for Sale
  3. Stormy Daniels Is Telling a Different, Darker Story Than She Used To
  4. Ah, Another Spineless Exercise That Lights American Politics Aflame

All this stuff needs to be shaken out at trial. And if it goes to trial and the gunmakers are able to prove that they were not, indeed, intentionally and knowingly, facilitating the trafficking of weapons across the border, then, sure, that’s the reality that we’re left with. But what the Mexican government says it will be able to prove is that these gunmakers aren’t just turning a blind eye. The guns are being trafficked over the border because that’s what the gunmakers want, because it’s a very lucrative segment of their industry. That would certainly seem to me to be a slam dunk in the sense that you would have, for the first time, a court decide that the distribution practices of the gun industry are directly responsible for the harms caused by gun violence down the line. And that would really be a profound ruling.

If this strategy by the Mexican government holds, and it’s not overturned by the Supreme Court, then you have an opportunity for domestic plaintiffs to make a similar argument. And now it’s a question of whether or not they could prove it; we don’t know. The other important thing to note is that while this Mexican government’s case has gone on, potential U.S plaintiffs have not just been sitting idly by. Several cities across the country have passed laws over the past three years to amend their state public nuisance statutes or to add new laws on the books that make explicit their connection to the sale or marketing of firearms. And those laws were put on the books with the intent of easing the route in through this predicate exception to the PLCAA.

Tweet Share Share Comment

QOSHE - Mexico Is Flooded With American Guns. So the Country’s Suing Companies Like Glock and Smith & Wesson. - Mary Harris
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Mexico Is Flooded With American Guns. So the Country’s Suing Companies Like Glock and Smith & Wesson.

8 14
18.03.2024

Listen to What Next:

  • Apple Podcasts
  • Spotify
  • Stitcher

Tweet Share Share Comment

I called up Champe Barton from over at the Trace to talk about a totally new way to think about gun control. But honestly, I can’t shake the very first thing he told me—a fact that seems to explain just how hard it is to prevent gun violence in the first place: “If you want to buy a gun in Mexico, there’s one gun store, and it’s on an army base. There’s just one, in the entire country.”

I live in a country, the United States, where there are twice as many gun stores as there are post offices, so it kind of blows my mind that just across the border things work like this. To get a gun legally in Mexico? You go through months of background checks. You apply for a temporary permit. And then you go to that military base. When the L.A. Times visited a few years back, the store sold just 38 guns a day to civilians.

And all this is even more shocking when you consider the kind of news stories Americans are used to hearing about Mexico. Since 2010, more than 200,000 people have been killed by guns there. I asked Barton to explain that disconnect. “The biggest issue is just that there’s thousands of American guns that are crossing the border every year into Mexico,” he said. “It comes out to somewhere between 360,000 to 597,000 guns a year that come over the border.”

Advertisement

And Mexico is pissed—so pissed, in fact, that it’s taking American gunmakers to court. With this case, the Mexican government is arguing we should think about American gunmakers the same way we think about tobacco companies or opioid distributors—as an industry that really should know better. “This Mexico case was an example to me of a new, fresh attempt at getting at this problem,” Barton said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

On a recent episode of What Next, we discussed this case of the Mexican government vs. American guns. Can a lawsuit do what politicians haven’t? Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Mary Harris: For the last couple of years, the Mexican government has been moving forward with this lawsuit against U.S.-based gun manufacturers. Tell me who exactly Mexico is suing here?

Advertisement

Champe Barton: Mexico is suing seven gun manufacturers and one gun distributor. The seven gun manufacturers are manufacturers whose guns most frequently turn up at crime scenes in Mexico. These are some of the biggest gunmakers in America: Colt, Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta. Huge names. They’re suing these companies, basically alleging that they have aided and abetted gun-trafficking operations, knowingly, with the intent of profiting off of that market.

Do they have proof that these manufacturers are helping drive the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico?

We can’t say if they have proof yet. You don’t have to prove a case before you bring it. What they have proved to a judge is that their allegations are plausible. If you look at the data on gun violence in Mexico relative to gun production in the U.S., you can see a pretty clear relationship between gun homicides on Mexican soil and U.S. gun production. As gun production goes up in the U.S., gun homicides go up in Mexico, generally. The central point is that there is a clear relationship here between what goes on in the U.S. in terms of its gun market and what goes on in Mexico in terms of its gun violence problem.

Advertisement

Advertisement

How exactly does a gun move from a U.S.-based manufacturer across the border to Mexico?

Advertisement

The market is basically the exact same as it would be for a U.S. gun buyer, up until the point of that final transaction. So the manufacturer makes the weapon, they send it usually to a wholesaler. The wholesaler will sell it to a dealer. The dealer will then put it in their shop, and someone can come in and buy it. In the case of the guns that are trafficked, very often, what’s happening is that people are going into those stores. They’re buying the guns with the intent of trafficking them, or because they’ve been tapped by someone who is working with a gun-trafficking ring to buy the gun. And then once that gun is purchased, it’s then smuggled south of the border, any number of ways. The exact path that the guns take after they leave the store is unclear. What is clear is that a lot of these........

© Slate


Get it on Google Play