By Jonathan Lowy and Scott Brasesco
Global Action on Gun Violence was founded on a premise that was considered unusual, perhaps even naïve, in gun violence prevention circles: that if domestic political gridlock prevents the United States from addressing the harm it causes as the primary source of gun violence in the world, then international pressure, international law, and international institutions must fill the void.
That strategy recently received its most significant validation yet.
On March 5, 2026, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released Advisory Opinion OC-30/25 of 3 December 2025, responding to a formal request submitted by Mexico in November 2022. The opinion lays out, in binding terms of international human rights law, what governments and firearms companies must do to meet their obligations to protect human life. In determining what regulations and policies are required of states and gun companies to prevent gun trafficking, the Court did not simply consider the power of special interest groups (as the U.S. political system does) or the special gun industry protections enacted by Congress (as the U.S. courts must do). Rather, the Court applied fundamental principles of human rights to which we all can agree, like the fact that we have a right to life and to personal security. The United States, by any honest reading of the Court’s opinion, falls dramatically short.
Here is how we got here, what this means, and why it matters.
How We Got Here
Most of the gun violence in the world occurs in the Americas, and lax U.S. gun laws and reckless U.S. gun industry practices supply most of those guns in many of those countries. Between 70 and 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico were trafficked from the United States. Mexico estimates that as many as half a million firearms cross its northern border illegally each year. The human cost is staggering: tens of thousands of lives lost annually, communities terrorized, generations of Mexicans robbed of safety and opportunity. And cartel violence, fueled by U.S. guns, drives migration, fentanyl, and human trafficking into the U.S.
Mexico has pursued accountability on multiple fronts. GAGV brought and led Mexico’s landmark lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers and U.S. gun dealers in U.S. federal court, to impose liability for their reckless and unlawful commercial practices that fuel the cartels’ gun pipelines. The manufacturer case made history by reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which on June 5, 2025, issued its first-ever ruling on gun industry liability. Mexico’s case was supported by the facts and basic U.S. tort law: the manufacturers deliberately and recklessly sell their guns through the bad-acting dealers and dangerous sales practices that they know supply the crime gun pipeline, they have refused to implement the reforms that would shut that pipeline, and they profit at the expense of innocent Mexicans and Americans as a result. However, the unique (and unjust) gun industry shield law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), shields gun companies from most negligence liability unless they also violate a criminal statute — a difficult hurdle that victims of no other industry are required to overcome in civil lawsuits. The Court held that Mexico’s specific allegations were insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability under PLCAA, but the decision was narrow and did not hand the gun industry the sweeping immunity it sought. The door to accountability remains open.
But litigation was never meant to be the only front. In November 2022, Mexico formally requested that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issue an advisory opinion on a fundamental question: what responsibility do states and private firearms companies bear under international human rights law for gun violence enabled by the firearms trade? GAGV submitted a brief in support of that request, George Washington University Law Professor Arturo Carrillo testified on behalf of GAGV at the Court’s hearing in Costa Rica, and GAGV testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, presenting evidence of how U.S. gun industry practices violate international human rights norms. We argued that the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life, demands that states regulate the firearms industry with the seriousness that obligation requires.
What the Court Decided
The Court’s opinion is a landmark. It establishes that states have a duty of due diligence to prevent firearms trafficking and that this duty includes actively monitoring and supervising firearms manufacturers and distributors to ensure their products are not enabling human rights violations. It requires states to conduct risk assessments before importing or exporting arms when those transfers could contribute to serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law. And it affirms that states must guarantee effective judicial remedies for victims of those violations — meaning laws that categorically immunize the firearms industry from accountability are incompatible with states’ human rights obligations.
These points strike directly at the heart of U.S. gun policy. By continuing to allow reckless gun dealers to repeatedly supply the criminal market, the U.S. is likely in violation of its human rights obligations. PLCAA — the 2005 federal gun industry immunity law that resulted in the dismissal of Mexico’s gun manufacturer lawsuit — is also contrary to basic principles of international human rights law. The Court has now said, plainly and authoritatively, that countries are obligated to ensure gun manufacturers do not violate human rights by enabling gun trafficking and that victims of human rights violations linked to manufacturers must be able to receive judicial remuneration. PLCAA does exactly the opposite: it retains the profit incentive for bad actors in the gun industry to supply gun traffickers by insulating them from the consequences of their negligent enabling behavior.
U.S. gun policy also violates international human rights law by enabling and facilitating gun trafficking. Gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico, Haiti, Jamaica, Canada, and other countries results from negligent gun sales that would not be allowed or possible in other countries. Traffickers often buy multiple guns and large supplies of ammunition in one sale, then return to the same store to buy more weeks later — often in cash sales. No justification for these purchases is required. While most gun dealers use care to spot and stop these suspicious transactions, a small percentage of bad actors put profits over public safety and make any sale; 90% of dealers sell no crime guns in a year, and 90% of the crime guns that are sold come from just 5% of dealers. “Due diligence” requires the U.S. to disallow the suspect sales and dealers that recklessly and repeatedly supply the crime gun pipeline.
The opinion also addresses corporate responsibility directly, drawing on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to establish that firearms companies themselves, not just governments, bear responsibility for implementing due diligence to prevent their products from reaching criminal markets. This is a significant development. For too long, the industry has hidden behind the fiction that it bears no responsibility for what happens to its products after the point of sale. The international community has now decisively rejected that fiction.
Gun dealers should implement the safe sales practices that spot and stop traffickers — that most gun dealers already do. Gun manufacturers should require that their dealers and distributors use best practices, and cut off those who don’t — as Smith & Wesson agreed to do over 25 years ago before reversing their decision under broad industry pressure.
How This Changes the Fight
This opinion is a huge deal, but let’s be clear about what it is and what it is not.
The Court’s opinion was advisory, and did not hold that the United States or any other country is in specific violation of law. Rather, it announced international human rights standards that must be followed in the Americas.
And while the clear logic of the opinion indicates that the U.S.’s PLCAA is contrary to human rights law, the gun lobby is technically correct that the opinion does not undo the Supreme Court’s opinion dismissing Mexico’s gun manufacturer lawsuit under PLCAA. But they are totally wrong about the opinion’s relevance.
Here is why: advisory opinions from international human rights tribunals establish binding legal obligations that carry enormous persuasive weight in domestic courts and legislatures around the world. They shape the normative landscape — the international consensus about what responsible governance and responsible corporate conduct looks like — that eventually filters into domestic law and policy. They give advocates, litigants, and legislators a powerful framework and a recognized authority to invoke. Every time a U.S. court, a state legislature, or a congressional committee considers gun industry accountability or regulation, this opinion now stands as the international community’s answer to the question: what does the world expect of a country that allows its firearms industry to sell widely to the civilian market? Not only is U.S. gun policy wholly out-of-step with the rest of the world, it is in violation of international human rights law.
The opinion also has direct implications beyond the U.S. borders. Major firearms manufacturers are global companies. Brazilian manufacturer Taurus, for example, is one of the world’s largest handgun producers and sells extensively throughout the Americas. The opinion applies to most states in the Organization of American States, and foreign manufacturers that sell into those markets are now on notice that international human rights law demands more of them.
For us at GAGV, the opinion validates and energizes a strategy we have pursued with conviction since the organization’s founding: that the U.S. gun violence epidemic is not merely a domestic political problem to be solved by the next election cycle, but a global human rights crisis that demands global action. When Congress remains paralyzed by the NRA and the gun lobby, international institutions, international law, and international pressure become indispensable tools. Mexico understood this when it sought the advisory opinion. The Court understood this when it issued the opinion. The gun industry understood this when the National Shooting Sports Foundation rushed to file its own amicus brief and testified in Costa Rica urging the Court not to act.
What Comes Next
We will continue working with Mexico and other international partners to translate this opinion into concrete pressure on the U.S. government and on the gun industry — to save lives, in the U.S. and throughout the world. That means using the opinion in litigation, in advocacy before Congress and state legislatures, and in international forums where the U.S. must account for its failure to meet global human rights standards.
The opinion arrives at a moment when the stakes could not be higher. The Trump Administration has, if anything, moved to weaken the already-inadequate safeguards that exist against gun trafficking. Enforcement of export laws has been inconsistent. Regulatory oversight of the gun industry has retreated. The international community’s voice matters more now, not less.
The world has spoken. It is past time for the United States — and the gun industry — to listen.