As I posted here, the March 4 oral argument in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos appeared to go well for S&W and not well for Mexico. Mexico's lawsuit seeks to hold America's federally-licensed firearm industry responsible for the cartel violence that plagues Mexico. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for crimes committed by third parties.
PLCAA does allow an action in which [1] a manufacturer or seller "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and [2] the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought." It was suggested in oral argument that Mexico's aiding and abetting theory did not meet element [1], rendering it unnecessary to resolve [2]. Yet leaving the latter, the proximate-cause issue, in limbo will result in continuing legal uncertainty and ongoing attacks on the industry facilitated by courts that are allowing the most extreme theories of proximate cause in which remoteness is disregarded.
The latest example is the denial by Judge Jorge L. Ortiz of the motion to dismiss in Kelly Roberts v. Smith and Wesson Brands, Circuit Court 19th Judicial District, Lake County, Ill. (April 1, 2025). In 2022, Robert Crimo III murdered seven people and injured dozens more with an S&W rifle in Highland Park, Illinois. He has pleaded guilty and faces life in prison. His father pleaded guilty to reckless conduct for helping his son obtain the rifle while knowing of his mental health issues.
