US Congresswoman Katie Porter asks to speak during the session of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations on July 27.
Then turn on your cell phone. Shows the audience how to activate a security filter to gain access: scan the fingerprint.
“Why does it take more steps to activate my phone than your company’s firearm?“, asks the CEO of a weapons company that virtually participates in the session.
In the United States, the purchase and possession of weapons is a constitutionally recognized right (second amendment), but this regulation does not only affect the country.
On August 4, 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit against 11 firearms manufacturers, claiming responsibility for the effects of the illicit trade.
A year since the litigation began, here are the key points.
Mexico’s arguments
The civil suit was filed in Federal District Court in Boston for strategic reasons: in the state of Massachusetts, the race for greater regulation of the trade and possession of weapons is more intense.
Also for strategic reasons, Mexico did not sue the United States for the regulation of arms (purchase, sale or possession), but 11 companies of US nationality (Smith & Wesson and others).
This is not a political or diplomatic controversy, nor a legal dispute between States, but involves private companies. Because?
Mexico argues that the manufacturers are responsible for the negligent conduct, as they knowingly promote the illicit trafficking of firearms and actively facilitate their reaching drug cartels in their territory. And all this while growing corporate profits.
In addition to the commercial or fiscal effects that the illegal introduction of any product by a State can generate, the heart of the arguments lies in the effects of this illicit: increase in national insecurity when dealing with weapons designed according to the needs and tastes of criminal groups (for example, without security measures), greater public spending on security measures (human and material resources) and, consequently, a decrease in tourism (fundamental income for the country).
However, companies and other entities are not exempt from complying with human rights standards, according to article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, their negligence contributes to the violation of the victims’ right to life or physical integrity.
Meanwhile, in the US…
As the court case progressed in the Federal District Court in Boston, on May 24, another shooting took place. In an elementary school in Uvalde (Texas), 19 children and two teachers were murdered.
President Biden spoke out without delay and emphasized the importance of passing common-sense gun laws. “We cannot and will not prevent all tragedies. But we know they work and have a positive impact.”
Is promoting and approving legal norms that limit the carrying of weapons enough? The answer also lies in Biden’s speech.
He referred to the “aggressive marketing” that gun companies have developed over the past two decades, particularly in relation to assault weapons. But it said nothing about the effects linked to illicit trafficking.
Legal norms that determine greater controls on manufacturers, monitoring of purchases and sales, limitations on advertising or the obligation to include security systems would also have positive effects on North American (and Mexican) soil.
Without limitations or greater controls over arms companies, the ideas present in Biden’s speech become ambiguous.
human rights and companies
Within the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, number 13 clearly states that companies must prevent their practices from “causing or contributing to negative consequences on human rights and facing such consequences when produced”.
According to data from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, 70% to 90% of the weapons seized in criminal activities were taken illegally from the United States to Mexico. Defendants trade 68%, or more than 340,000, of these weapons.
Corporate accountability is also under scrutiny in other areas: for example, in healthcare, tobacco companies have been questioned by the tobacco epidemic or the role that the packaged food and beverage industry plays in healthy food environments.
Even in the United States there is a precedent with similarities to the Mexican lawsuit: the National Prescription Opiate Litigation in the District Court of Cleveland (Ohio).
West Virginia cities and counties, as well as indigenous groups, have blamed drug companies on the one hand for misrepresenting the risks of using prescription opioids, and on distributors for negligence in handling suspicious orders on the other.
In order to stop the litigation from continuing, on July 26, three of the accused distributors (AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson) announced a settlement worth about $400 million.
Are gun manufacturers responsible?
Mexico has embarked on historic litigation: suing 11 US gun manufacturers in Massachusetts state court.
Illicit trafficking in the United States has a direct impact on Mexican territory (national security, fiscal aspects, tourism), but also on the fundamental rights of those who were murdered with the trafficked firearms.
Are manufacturers responsible? Anyone reading this text probably already has an answer.
