Back to News
Image Source: (AP Images/Eyepix)
May 8, 2025
Now Mexico is Concerned About Sovereignty
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected President Donald Trump’s offer to send U.S. troops into Mexico to hunt down narco-terrorist drug cartels for a curious reason. It has to do with sovereignty – which would make sense – except Mexico had no qualms about trampling on U.S. sovereignty when it filed a lawsuit against members of the firearm industry in an attempt to dictate Second Amendment rights right here in America.
Mexico’s President Sheinbaum responded to questions at a recent public event that followed a Wall Street Journal report detailing tense discussions between the two countries surrounding the offer to combat narco-terrorism.
“He said, ‘How can we help you fight drug trafficking? I propose that the United States military come in and help you.’ And you know what I said to him? ‘No, President Trump,’” President Sheinbaum stated during a speech in eastern Mexico, according to a Business Times report. “Sovereignty is not for sale. Sovereignty is loved and defended.”
She added to crowd applause, “We will never accept the presence of the United States military in our territory.”
Sovereignty for Who?
That’s a curious answer, if not outright hypocrisy. Just two months ago, lawyers for Mexico stood before the U.S. Supreme Court attempting to persuade the justices to allow a $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers to proceed and drastically alter Second Amendment rights – for the citizens of a sovereign nation.
Mexico’s $10 billion claim against U.S. firearm manufacturers in Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., alleges the lawful and heavily regulated U.S. firearm manufacturers’ practices are “aiding and abetting” the illegal straw purchase of firearms that are then illegally smuggled by transnational narco-terrorist drug cartels south into Mexico. Those illegally-smuggled firearms are then provided to the cartels and then criminally misused in Mexico which causes Mexico to spend money because of the harm caused by the criminal misuse of those illegally-obtained firearms.
NSSF filed an amicus brief supporting Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., in its petition.
The case, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in March, centered on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which prohibits frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties. Mexico also attempted to implicate the lawful marketing and distribution practices by U.S. firearm manufacturers. Mexico’s lawyers contend that not only are U.S. firearm manufacturers allegedly “aiding and abetting” in transnational illegal firearm smuggling, they are also to blame for Mexican drug cartels criminally misusing firearms because of the advertising of those products, which are legal for sale to law-abiding U.S. citizens.
Mexico, which now rejects U.S. assistance to fight their narco-terrorist drug cartels over concerns of sovereignty, had no apprehensions of walking into the highest court in the United States to demand that Second Amendment rights protected by the U.S. Constitution should be dictated by morays of a foreign entity that has proven itself incapable of bringing those cartel bosses to justice in Mexican courtroom.
The irony is thick.
Justices Had Questions
Even Supreme Court justices indicated as much in their questions during oral arguments.
The justices asked how Mexico’s claims weren’t impugning U.S. sovereignty by dictating through their lawsuit how many guns, which types of guns and how those guns must be sold. Chief Justice John Roberts asked what the minimum number of illegally-trafficked guns must be for the Court to weigh in favor of Mexico. He also asked if a particular design must be considered.
“You have a number of criteria or examples, you know, the gun says this or it looks like a military weapon and it has an American flag, and, you know, I – Zapata’s quote about better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I mean, those are all things that are not illegal in any way,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “And the idea – I mean, there are some people who want the experience of shooting a particular type of gun because they find it more enjoyable than using a – a BB gun. And I just wonder exactly what the defendant, the manufacturer is supposed to – to do in that situation.”
Catherine Stetson, a lawyer representing Mexico, pointed to three particular firearms she said were attractive for narco-terrorist crime bosses as examples of how U.S. firearm manufacturers are making firearms sought by the drug cartels. Noel Francisco, a former U.S. Solicitor General representing the manufacturers, dismissed that claim as “absurd.”
“The notion that selling a Spanish-named firearm is what gives rise to joint purpose with cartels under the aiding and abetting statute is as wrong as it is offensive,” said Francisco in rebuttal. “There are, after all, millions of perfectly law-abiding Spanish-speaking Americans in this country that find those firearms very attractive. And making those firearms available cannot possibly cross the line into aiding and abetting liability.”
Justice Samuel Alito questioned Mexico’s abuse of the American judicial system, asking if the Mexican government would invoke sovereign immunity in U.S. courts if the tables were turned.
“So the – the argument basically – so, it’s a one-way street?,” Justice Alito asked. “The Government of Mexico can sue U.S. manufacturers here for harm caused in Mexico, but one of the states here can’t sue the Government of Mexico for cause – for harm caused in the United States?”
Mexico, apparently, does view sovereignty as a one-way street. From President Sheinbaum’s perspective, it is not only implausible but impossible for the United States to assist Mexico in fighting narco-terrorists inside Mexico because of Mexico’s sovereignty. Mexico is the sole authority inside their own borders. However, President Sheinbaum had no issue with her lawyers marching into the U.S. Supreme Court to demand that the Second Amendment rights belonging to “the People” of the United States must bow to the whims of Mexico’s demands.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to deliver a decision by the end of June.
You may also be interested in:
U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Mexico’s Claims to Get Around PLCAA
NSSF Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to End Mexico’s Firearm Industry Lawsuit
Categories: BP Item, Education, Government Relations, Top Stories
25650
