Firearms from the US Fuel Mexico’s Cartel Violence

In the heart of Mexico City’s infamous Tepito district – a place infamous for its lawlessness and where even law enforcement fear to venture – a dark underbelly of illegal activities takes center stage. Controlled by the Union Cartel, Tepito is a bustling center for everything illegal, spanning from counterfeit goods and drug trafficking to extortion and even forced labor. Young ‘lookouts,’ often minor children, vigilantly patrol market openings while traffickers carry out their illicit transactions under the watchful eye of Jesús Malverde, known as the ‘narco saint.’ The focal strength of Tepito comes from its unseen arsenals – ordinary residences and subterranean shelters where guns are peddled like snacks. Pistols go for $300, while AR-15s and 50-caliber rifles draw $1,500 and $3,000 respectively. The breadth of this weaponry, from simple pistols to grenade launchers, fuels the never-ending cartel carnage in Mexico. However, the real dilemma is: where are these weapons sourced from, and is the United States entirely responsible?

After designating six Mexican cartels as terror groups by the Trump administration, the Mexican government sought to litigate against the United States, asking the Supreme Court for $10 billion from US firearms manufacturers. The suit argues that these US corporations consciously enable cartel violence by allowing American-made firearms to leak into Mexico, thus bringing them into illegal activities. It is alleged by the Mexican state that weapon manufacturers overlooked straw purchasers and smugglers, directly fueling cartel violence and burdening the Mexican state with increased law enforcement costs.

However, gun manufacturers defend themselves, stating that they have always acted lawfully and are safeguarded by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act or PLCAA – a federal law that provides insulation from liability. They insist that their operations are standard business practices and that Mexico’s allegations are based on a sequence of isolated criminal activities, linking American distributors, smugglers, traffickers, and cartel enforcers. They argue that manufacturers cannot be held accountable for criminal actions undertaken with legally sold firearms, much like automobile makers are not held responsible for reckless drivers.

Yet Mexico refutes this, stating that this case is unique: gun manufacturers allegedly knowingly contribute to an illegal trade by dismissing red flags and dealing with notorious buyers. After being rejected by a lower court in 2022, a year post-filing, the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, was revived the following year by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This led to an exception being made with the PLCAA, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now heard the verbal arguments, and the justices are predicted to consider whether firearms manufacturers should be held liable for cartel bloodshed, or if the blame lies elsewhere.

Mexico is grappling with a significant issue of violent crime, largely perpetuated by gangs and drug cartels. Nearly 35,000 homicides were reported in Mexico in 2019, with substantial violence threatening public safety and governance. Seven of the globe’s ten most dangerous cities are in Mexico. Incidents like Royal Caribbean suspending service to Manzanillo this year due to escalating violence shed light on the pervasive insecurity, making it challenging for the law enforcement to arrest the key perpetrators of crime.

Despite having some of the strictest gun legislation worldwide, Mexico is under siege from weapons. Serving a population of 130 million, the country has merely one legal gun store and grants fewer than 50 licenses annually following lengthy waiting periods exceeding six months. Even though the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected in Mexico, obtaining a firearm legally poses a severe challenge for law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, criminal organizations and cartels are drowning in weapons.

The majority of Mexicans claim that easy access to weapons in the United States fuels the violence ravaging their country, thereby bolstering cartel operations and criminal activities. The Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations estimates that between 70 to 90 percent of traceable firearms are either made in or pass through the northern border. According to reports from the Department of Justice and the Government Accountability Office, this figure is slightly lower at 68 percent; 50 percent of these arms are made in the United States, and 18 percent are imported before being smuggled into Mexico.

However, there are other factors to consider. Reports from intelligence sources assert that, although most firearms in the hands of cartels come from the United States, a rising number of weapons are being supplied from elsewhere. Smugglers are exploiting Central and South American networks, with significant shipments originating from Nicaragua and other Latin American nations. Arms from Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and certain Middle Eastern regions also add to the arsenal as criminal groups diversify their import channels to avoid tighter controls on Mexico’s northern frontier.

Likewise, underground workshops within Mexico utilize state-of-the-art Computer Numerical Control machinery to craft firearm components, further complicating the issue of managing illegal arms trafficking. Tepito, a notorious black market in Mexico City, has grown into the nation’s largest center for underground weapon distribution, driven by imports from Colombia, Spain, and Pakistan. In words of a US official, ‘They do obtain firearms from the US through straw purchases where people buy guns legally in the US and then smuggle them into Mexico. But they also acquire Russian-made weapons, like AK-47s. There are instances where US weapons are bought in other countries and then smuggled into the U.S., thereby expanding the supply chain.’

Shifting the focus away from the United States, escalating violent crime in Mexico is exacerbated by rampant impunity and a failing judicial system. Human rights violations, such as extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture, and corruption, are widespread. A study by the Center for Impunity and Justice Studies at the Universidad de Las Américas reveals that only approximately 4.46 percent of reported crimes result in justice. However, since only 7 percent of crimes are reported at all, the actual rate of impunity tops 99 percent. The main reasons many Mexicans provide for not reporting crimes are distrust in authorities and long, convoluted legal processes.

Consequently, organized crime flourishes, enjoying virtually complete immunity, while ordinary citizens suffer the consequences of uncontrolled violence. Aggravating the situation is rampant corruption, with certain politicians accusing officials of turning a blind eye on extensive corruption ‘in the name of cooperation with and diverting resources to foreign entities,’ thereby costing human lives and immense taxpayer money.

Should Mexico’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers proceed, it could establish a groundbreaking legal precedent, stretching further than just the firearms sector to any company whose products may be misused for illegal purposes. The verdict of the Supreme Court carries the potential to alter corporate responsibility in the context of cross-border crime, possibly challenging long-established protections for gun manufacturers under American law.

However, the justices appeared skeptical about Mexico’s assertion that American gun manufacturers are primarily to blame for escalating violence rather than Mexico’s own deep-rooted corruption and governance failures. Although the Supreme Court’s final verdict is unknown, it has profound implications for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which has shielded the firearms sector from lawsuits since 2005.

This case also comes amidst worsening US-Mexico relations, with issues of border security and cartel violence remaining central to political conversations.