Opinion - Gun laws may face legal challenges, but they originate in Congress

The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a decisive ruling in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, unanimously rejecting Mexicos $10 billion lawsuit against American firearm manufacturers. The 90 decision reinforced what Congress established in 2005: the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents holding gun makers responsible for crimes committed by others.

Despite this clear legal precedent, attorney Jonathan Lowy, who spearheaded similar unsuccessful lawsuits in the past, has shifted focus to Arizona gun retailers. In a recent opinion piece co-written with Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, Lowy frames Mexico as a global advocate against gun violence, seemingly attempting to divert attention from previous legal defeats.

Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to block lawsuits aimed at financially crippling gun manufacturers for actions beyond their control. The law aligns with established tort principles, which require a direct link between a defendants wrongful act and the harm caused. Firearms legally sold but later misused by criminals do not meet this standard, as the Supreme Court clarified. Justice Elena Kagan noted that Mexicos claims mirrored those Congress sought to prevent when passing the 2005 legislation.

Lowy is familiar with the history, having helped coordinate early attempts to hold gun manufacturers liable in the late 1990s and early 2000s. At that time, municipal leaders and lawyers sought to pressure gun makers through litigation, but Congress intervened with bipartisan support. The law did not grant blanket immunity, as Lowy now suggests, but reaffirmed fundamental legal principles. Scholars widely support this interpretation. Victor Schwartz, author of a leading tort law textbook, calls it a common-sense law protecting against misguided liability attempts. Jonathan Tur

Author: Aiden Foster