Attorney General Raúl Torrez Joins Brief Arguing that Federal Gun Law Does Not Shield Gun Manufacturers and Dealers from Liability

Albuquerque, NM – Attorney General Raúl Torrez along with 16 other attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the case Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands et al arguing that gun manufacturers and dealers are not immune from liability when they market their guns to drug cartels and violent gangs.

In their brief, the attorneys general describe the states’ interests in upholding public safety and preserving state-law remedies for misconduct by gun manufacturers and sellers. To further these interests, the coalition urges the court to recognize that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) creates only a narrow restriction on state-law remedies against the firearms industry. Under PLCAA’s plain terms, the coalition argues, gun manufacturers and dealers are not exempt from liability when they violate state or federal laws governing the sale and marketing of firearms.

“States must be able to hold gun manufacturers and dealers accountable for their dangerous marketing and selling tactics that puts our community at risk,” said AG Torrez. “I am proud to join with attorneys general from across the nation to push back against these dangerous marketing tactics and protect our communities from gun violence.”

The brief was filed in support of the government of Mexico’s lawsuit against seven U.S.-based gun manufacturers and a gun distributor. Mexico’s lawsuit alleges that the defendants designed, marketed, distributed, and sold guns in a way they knew appealed to drug cartels and violent gangs in Mexico. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the case on the theory that Mexico’s claims were barred under PLCAA. The coalition of attorneys general had supported Mexico in the lower court, urging that court to construe PLCAA narrowly, and is now continuing that support on appeal of the dismissal.

The coalition argues that, when Congress enacted PLCAA, it did so with the intention of striking a balance: exempting gun manufacturers and sellers from liability for harms inflicted solely because of third parties’ unlawful conduct, while also expressly preserving liability where gun industry members themselves violate state or federal laws applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms. PLCAA thus does not grant broad immunity for gun manufacturers and sellers and does not stand in the way of actions, like the one brought by Mexico, alleging that the defendants knowingly violated state or federal statutes applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.

The coalition argues that the state and federal statutes identified in Mexico’s complaint, such as the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of 1934, and state consumer protection laws, are precisely the sort of statutes that the PLCAA says can be enforced. Since Mexico pleaded violations of each of these laws, the coalition argues, the district court erred in analyzing only the alleged state-law violations, but not the alleged federal violations, before dismissing Mexico’s complaint as barred by PLCAA. The coalition also argues that principles of federalism and respect for state sovereignty require reading PLCAA narrowly, so as not to deprive residents of state-law remedies more broadly than Congress intended.

The brief, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, is joined by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

A full copy of the brief is below.

Brief of Massachusetts et al. EUM v. Smith and Wesson No. 22-1823