Federal Court Torpedos Mexican Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers

One of the most significant lawsuits in the firearms world has been mostly dismantled in the U.S. Federal District Court. US district judge Dennis Saylor has dismissed the Mexican government’s lawsuit against six American gunmakers, months after it was filed in Massachusetts. However, the $10B lawsuit is not completely gone—there’s still some cleanup to sort out with other parties named in the suit.

Lawsuits @ TFB:

• Franklin Armory Announces Lawsuit Against New Jersey
• SIG Sauer Files Lawsuit Alleging P320 Misrepresentations By Attorney
• Lawsuit Alert: Palmetto State Armory v. Shield Arms
• Trijicon Fires Back Re: Lawsuit Settlement with Holosun

How we got here

The Mexican federal government has been working to fight U.S. gunmakers in court for months now, with a $10 billion lawsuit in the works. As we told you last time we looked at this:

“The Mexican lawsuit boils down to this: Mexico’s government says American gunmakers are the cause of violence in that country, due to manufacturers’ business practices in the U.S. The manufacturers pointed to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which initially was enough to shoot down the lawsuit in U.S. courtrooms. However, back in January of 2024, a three-judge panel in the Boston-based First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the PLCAA only protects firearm manufacturers from lawsuits over criminal misuse of their products in the U.S.”

Thanks to that appeal, the Mexican lawsuit showed back up in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor said six of the parties named in the lawsuit were outside that court’s jurisdiction. With that said, he dismissed the lawsuit against Barrett, Beretta, Glock, Sturm Ruger & Co, Colt and Century. Only Witmer Public Safety Group (wholesalers) and Smith & Wesson remain, and since Smith & Wesson’s relocation, they might not be on the list for long. However, the Mexican government says it is considering its options, which include another appeal or re-filing in other courthouses—or perhaps other lawyering tactics.

What’s really going on here?

According to Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the Mexican government was “forum-shopping,” trying to pick a sympathetic courthouse to hear their lawsuit against the gunmakers, when other courthouses would have rejected the case based on the PLCAA. It’s hard to disagree with that; why else would Mexico use a Boston courtroom to sue these firearm makers who aren’t based anywhere near Massachusetts? Based on the appeals court’s ruling in January, it looks like the tactics worked somewhat. But in this case, the Mexicans ended up with a Bush-appointed judge who did not see eye-to-eye on their case.