In layman’s terms: In a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson may not go forward and made very positive position statements about the popular AR-15 rifle.
On Thursday, June 5, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in favor of Smith & Wesson with a groundbreaking decision in its unexpected defense of the AR-15.
This decision is a monumental victory for American arms manufacturers, the Second Amendment, and, in particular, offers messaging that indicates the Court fully understands and likely intends to rule against any one of the many “assault weapon” ban cases that are ripe for hearing.
In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the arms manufacturer, a truly remarkable ruling given that the Court has often been split on firearms-related issues.
In this case, Mexico attempted to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for otherwise lawful commercial activity. Mexico argued that Smith & Wesson violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which generally bars certain lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms.
Mexico sought to apply exceptions to PLCAA which include when the defendant manufacturer or seller, “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms such as when a gun manufacturer (or seller) aids and abets another person in making a false statement about a gun sale’s legality or in making specified criminal sales.
In response, the Supreme Court concluded, “Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.”
The case also bodes well for other lawsuits that have been filed under the guise of PLCAA violations, such as one by the New Jersey Attorney General against Glock Inc. and Glock Ges.m.b.H, its Austrian parent company. (In February, the National Shooting Sports Foundation announced that it had reopened its federal court case against the New Jersey Attorney General in response to a string of enforcement actions.) The holding seems to squarely address the argument that claiming that a defendant’s controls or business practices are inadequate does not rise to the level of the exceptions to the PLCAA. That comprises a significant portion of the claims made in these so-called “nuisance suits” being brought by states like New Jersey and Illinois.
Perhaps the most unexpected element to come out of the 9-0, 24-page Smith & Wesson penned by Justice Kagan is a defense of the much-maligned AR-15 (emphasis ours):
As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” “assault weapons”, among which it includes AR-15 rifles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country….
Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.”
In writing for the court, Kagan reflects the opinion of ALL the justices (there was no dissent), that the AR-15 is both legal, AND owned by millions of law-abiding citizens, or, in ‘common use.’ Heretofore, the court has not made its position clear on where it stands with America’s most popular rifle, even after turning down an “assault weapon” ban case just days ago that many believed was ripe for hearing.
This decision bodes well for when the Court finally decides to take such a case. More immediately, two consolidated cases are scheduled to be argued before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on June 30, which deal specifically with state bans on semi-automatic rifles. Joe LoPorto, Director of Legal Operations for New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate, commented that, “while not entirely central to the holding in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, this language in a unanimous opinion by the Supreme Court could prove highly influential on the panel hearing ANJRPC and Cheeseman later this month. The Supreme Court seems to concede the point that semi-automatic rifles are both legal and commonly owned for lawful purposes.”
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement in an email:
This ruling is a powerful reminder that Americans don’t answer to globalists or foreign governments. Mexico’s gun control dystopia has empowered cartels and disarmed the innocent–and now they want to export that disaster to the U.S. The Supreme Court just told them: “Not on our soil.”
