Solution: How Litigation Reduces Gun Violence
Tort litigation against irresponsible gun companies has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to reform dangerous gun industry practices. Forcing companies to pay for some of the damage they cause to victims due to their misconduct can make their dangerous practices unprofitable. So even if they only care about their bottom line, they will act more responsibly. Studies document how effective tort litigation can be in reducing the supply of crime guns.
One study found an 84% decrease in crime guns from 25 gun dealers recovered in New York City after the dealers faced public nuisance suits brought by the city. Another study found a 62% decrease in crime guns recovered in Chicago within one year of sale from a dealer who faced a lawsuit by the City. And reforms by even one gun company can have a large impact on gun violence. One study found a 44% decrease in new crime guns in Milwaukee when just one gun store reformed its business practices by stopping sales of cheap handguns.
Lawsuits have forced numerous gun dealers to implement safer practices to prevent straw sales. And in 2000, in response to lawsuits brought by numerous U.S. cities and counties, and a threatened suit by the U.S. government, Smith & Wesson agreed to sell guns only through authorized dealers who used safe practices, and to market and design guns more safely than is required under any state or federal laws. Although Smith & Wesson reneged on the agreement, the settlement shows that significant reforms by gun manufacturers are feasible, and achievable through litigation.
Gun industry accountability is difficult to achieve in the United States, because the U.S. Congress enacted special protections to exempt the gun industry from liability and transparency required of every other industry.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, has been misinterpreted by many courts to shield gun companies from some liability under negligence and public nuisance law, although most courts have ruled that violations of gun laws disentitle companies from protection. The Tiahrt Amendment, enacted in 2003, uniquely shields some crime gun data from public disclosure, which also makes litigation more difficult.
GAGV’s solution avoids these roadblocks in the United States by assisting individuals and countries outside of the U.S. in bringing litigation to attain liability and accountability against gun companies that is difficult to achieve in wholly domestic litigation. PLCAA does not protect gun companies who are sued outside of the U.S. And PLCAA, properly understood, cannot be applied in lawsuits for harm suffered outside of the U.S., even if the lawsuit is brought domestically.
Litigation
Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, et al. (D. Mass. 2021)
Complaint (Aug. 4, 2021)
GAGV brought the first ever lawsuit by a sovereign nation – Mexico – against the gun industry, seeking to hold several gun manufacturers accountable for contributing to gun trafficking across the border. Mexico alleged that six gun manufacturers negligently and illegally facilitate cross-border gun trafficking by deliberately selling their guns through the worst-of-the-worst gun dealers who use reckless sales practices to traffickers and sell almost all crime guns.
Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson, et al., became the first gun industry liability case ever heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. After winning a landmark unanimous ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which allowed Mexico’s claims, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision.
In a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that, under the Government of Mexico’s allegations against Smith & Wesson, et. al., the Court could not find that the gun manufacturer defendants aided and abetted violations of federal firearms laws. Therefore, the case was barred by the federal gun industry shield law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
Notably, the Court did not address or accept the defendants’ arguments that they could not be the proximate cause of any injuries suffered by Mexico as a result of gun industry-driven gun trafficking and violence. While the decision ended Mexico’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers, it was narrow and did not affect Mexico’s ongoing lawsuit against five firearms dealers (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback) or bar future litigation.
Read a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Furthermore, the lawsuit has garnered global attention at the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and other international conferences and forums. The case has helped to educate leaders and people throughout the world about the problem of gun trafficking and the need to stop the crime gun pipeline at its gun industry source.
Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, Inc., et al. (D. Ariz. 2022)
Complaint (Oct. 10, 2022)
In 2022, the Government of Mexico brought a lawsuit against five Arizona gun dealers. The case is the first lawsuit alleging RICO claims against the gun industry and the first by a sovereign country against gun dealers. GAGV is co-counsel for Mexico, along with Steve Shadowen of Shadowen PLLC.
On March 24, 2024, a federal trial court in Arizona held that the Government of Mexico could proceed in its landmark anti-gun trafficking lawsuit against five gun dealers, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss in most of the claims. The case is currently in discovery.
Read more about GAGV’s work with Mexico.
Price v. Smith & Wesson (Ontario, Canada)
In 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed by victims of a mass shooting in Toronto against Smith & Wesson for its design of the gun used in the shooting. Malcolm Ruby and other attorneys represent the plaintiffs, with Jonathan Lowy acting as U.S. legal consultant.
The trial court denied motions to dismiss the case but subsequently refused to grant class-action status. That decision was reversed on June 23, 2025 by the Court of Appeals of Ontario, which held that the case can proceed as a class action.
Gustafson v. Springfield Armory
GAGV is lead counsel for the parents of 13-year-old J.R. Gustafson in a lawsuit that resulted in the only appellate decision to hold that the U.S. federal gun industry protection law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), is unconstitutional.
J.R. was killed by another boy with a gun he thought was unloaded, since the magazine was removed. The suit alleged that the gun was defective for failing to include safety features that would have prevented the shooting.
On January 15, 2019, a trial judge dismissed the case, ruling that PLCAA barred liability. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed, becoming the first appeals court in the nation to hold that PLCAA is unconstitutional. The defendants appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
On April 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heard oral arguments in the Gustafson appeal, with Jon Lowy arguing on behalf of the Gustafson family. Kelly Iverson of Lynch Carpenter and lawyers with Brady are co-counsel. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed on March 31, 2025, holding that PLCAA was constitutional and that it barred the case.
On July 29, 2025, the Gustafsons petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision and hold that PLCAA is unconstitutional. The Gustafsons argue that PLCAA violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson
GAGV is co-counsel (with Brady and Perkins Coie) in the only ongoing lawsuit by a U.S. government against numerous major gun manufacturers. The city of Gary, Indiana, first brought the suit in 1999, seeking to hold manufacturers and dealers accountable for negligent sales and distribution practices that supply the criminal gun market.
In the past 25 years, Gary has defeated multiple motions to dismiss brought by the industry and won three appeals. By the fall of 2023, the case was in the discovery phase, in which the gun companies are required to turn over documents and submit to testimony under oath.
However, on March 15, 2024, the Indiana state legislature enacted a bill that targets Gary’s suit by banning cities from suing gun companies. The bill is retroactive to Aug. 26, 1999 — four days before Gary filed its suit.
Based on this new law, defendants (the gun companies) again moved to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the new Indiana law violated constitutional rights and was impermissibly retroactive. Defendants have appealed to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, where the case is pending.
U.S. v. Rahimi
On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States, by an 8-1 vote, rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law banning persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. In an amicus brief, GAGV argued that the law should be upheld, as did other groups.
However, GAGV was the only major gun violence prevention group to argue that the Supreme Court should also reverse its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen.
In the 2008 Heller decision, the Court overturned 200 years of precedent that recognized the Second Amendment’s intended meaning to protect state militias. In the 2022 Bruen decision, the Court held that gun laws required some historical analogue to be constitutional. The Court did not take up GAGV’s call to reverse Heller or Bruen.