Meet the U.S. Lawyer Representing Mexico in Its Lawsuits against the Billion-Dollar U.S. Gun Industry
Last week, a federal judge in Arizona ruled that the Mexican government can move forward in its potentially history-making lawsuit against five Arizona gun dealers, four of which are located in the borderlands.
It’s the second lawsuit filed by the Mexican government to curb the illegal trafficking of U.S. weapons, which contribute to tens of thousands of deaths every year as organized crime claims more territory in Mexico. The first lawsuit, against gun manufacturers, was filed in Massachusetts in August 2021 and dismissed by a U.S. district court, citing a legal technicality. In February, however, it was revived by a U.S. federal appeals court.
Now both lawsuits can move forward, and other countries, no doubt, are watching to see what happens next in Mexico’s historic bid to stop the illegal flow of guns from the United States. U.S. Attorney Jonathan Lowy, who is representing Mexico in this trailblazing case, says a win for Mexico could be an even bigger win for the United States, which has been unable to curb its own gun violence and is “the only country in the world,” he says, “where there are more guns than people.”
Before founding the nonprofit Global Action on Gun Violence in 2022, Lowy spent 25 years at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after James Brady, the former White House press secretary who was shot during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
At the Brady Center, Lowy spent decades trying to stem the tide of guns by suing gun manufacturers on behalf of America’s largest cities. Frustrated by the industry’s hold over U.S. politics, he decided to take his fight to the global community and exert pressure from the outside. Lowy also has a case before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, on behalf of the Oliver family, whose son, Joaquin, was murdered in the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school massacre. In the human rights case, Lowy argues for the constitutional “right not to be shot.” In this Q&A, Lowy discusses Mexico’s historic legal battle and his lifelong efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States.
What was it like working at the Brady Center, and what led you to start your own nonprofit focused on global gun violence?
Well, I was at the Brady Center for 25 years. Most of that time, I was leading their legal department and representing cities, counties, and individual victims of gun violence in litigation against the gun industry. And while we had some important successes, ultimately, I was frustrated by the lack of progress. Congress, for the most part, was working to exacerbate gun violence rather than taking steps to prevent it. And I began working with the government of Mexico, which was interested in taking much bolder action to reduce gun violence than I’d seen in the United States. It opened my eyes to the potential of impactful change through bold action working with the international community. That led me to start Global Action on Gun Violence.
Can you talk more about the bold action that Mexico wanted to take that inspired you?
Well, the first thing was to bring a lawsuit against major gun manufacturers, which is something that no country had ever done. The United States considered it under the Clinton administration, and threatened to do that, but ultimately did not. Mexico also opened my eyes to the fact that U.S. gun violence is a global issue. It’s not just causing harm to people in the U.S. It’s causing devastation to people in Mexico, it’s facilitating transnational organized crime. It’s arming gangs in Jamaica and Haiti. And that’s an aspect of the problem that is not really talked about much.
When you were working at the Brady Center, you realized that Congress is exacerbating the issue with guns. How so? How has U.S. politics been captured by the gun industry?
Congress let the federal assault weapon ban lapse. And that led to a tremendous spike in homicides in Mexico, as well as increasing numbers of mass shootings in the United States. Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to give special protections to the gun industry that no other industry, or people in America have. Guns are the most dangerous consumer product on the market, but in many ways the least regulated, because they are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety oversight. BB guns and teddy bears are subject to more federal safety regulation and more legal accountability than the firearms industry.
Why does the U.S. gun industry have such a hold on Congress? Is it because of all the money it puts into lobbying and congressional campaigns?
Money is part of it, but it’s not the whole story. Historically, there are extremists in the gun lobby who are some of the only single-issue voters in the U.S., which has given them disproportionate influence. But this is starting to change. The number of single-issue gun voters is decreasing, and the number of gun-safety voters is increasing. And, more importantly, the number of people who are elevating gun safety as one of their top issues is increasing tremendously. So, politics is certainly changing.
That’s good to hear. I lived for many years in Texas, where it’s a tradition at this point during campaign season for both Republican and Democrat candidates to be seen posing with their guns, whether it’s hunting or whatever in their campaign materials. Now I live in Arizona, where it’s a similar trend, even though the U.S. has had countless mass shootings.
There’s far too much moderation on the gun-violence-prevention side and not nearly enough ambition. You shouldn’t have to apologize for the fact that your primary interest is protecting the lives of people from gunfire. And yet you hear politicians on the prevention side often start their speech with “I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment but …” as if they have to make excuses for or explain why they want to protect children from being slaughtered.
You mentioned earlier that the U.S. gun industry’s practices cause havoc in other countries. Can you explain this more?
The U.S. government, particularly the ATF and Department of Justice, has reported for over 20 years how the crime gun market is supplied through a small percentage of gun dealers. About 5 percent of gun dealers were reported to sell about 90 percent of crime guns. And many of those sales by those dealers are in high-risk, dangerous sales practices like multiple sales, repeat sales. Sales to obvious gun traffickers. Manufacturers have been told to stop supplying those dealers and to require that dealers use safe sales practices, such as screening for traffickers and straw buyers. But manufacturers have refused. And it’s those sales and distribution practices that have supplied the criminal gun market in the United States. And it’s the same practices that supply criminals in Mexico, Haiti, Jamaica, and other countries. In the U.S., some states have enacted stronger laws, but they end up being undercut by weak gun law states because the traffickers and straw buyers, buy guns in those weak law states and then sell them in the strong gun law states. Like Indiana is a source state for Chicago. Florida and Georgia are source states for Haiti and Jamaica. Texas and Arizona are source states for criminals in Mexico. It’s the same phenomenon.
Could you expand on the lawsuit in Arizona? A lot of these gun sales seem to happen near or at the border. At least four of the gun dealers in the lawsuit are in the borderlands and close to Mexico.
There’s certainly a disproportionate number of dealers that are positioned to take advantage of the criminal market in Mexico.
With regard to the lawsuit, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss claims that gun dealers are protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act [a federal law that shields gun manufacturers and dealers from being liable for the “harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties.”] So the court has now set a scheduling, order, and timelines. Now the case goes into discovery, where Mexico will have an opportunity to obtain evidence, documents, emails, and live testimony under oath to assemble its case.
And the other lawsuit against gun manufacturers, in Massachusetts, what is the status of that case?
The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that that case can go forward, and the defendants have said that they will be seeking Supreme Court review, and they’ll be filing a petition in April. I think it’s extremely unlikely, though, that the Supreme Court will take this case.
It feels like such an intractable issue in the U.S. with guns now. There are so many mass shootings. Do you think that there could be an impact on U.S. gun policies by working internationally?
Absolutely. There was a headline in the Boston Globe a few months ago that said something like “America won’t solve its gun problem. Maybe Mexico will do it for us.” And I really think there’s a lot of truth to that. Mexico is seeking damages, which would take a lot of the profit out of supplying the criminal gun market. And injunctive relief, which would be court orders requiring companies to sell guns more responsibly and safely. If that were to happen, it would cut off a large part of the supply to the crime gun market, both in the U.S. and abroad.
If Mexico is successful, it will benefit the United States, perhaps even more than Mexico. Because the United States is victimized by the business practices of the gun industry every bit as much, if not more than Mexico is. So, it really is a two-way street, and Mexico’s actions will save lives on both sides of the border.
Excellent reporting on one of the most under reported issues. I had no idea about these lawsuits. I work with asylum seekers everyday and almost all have been victims of some sort of violence in Mexico on their way to the border. I can only hope Jonathan Lowy is successful as he has given his life to this urgent work.
Great write up! Sharing.