Judge Denies Bid to Delay Mexico’s Legal Battle Against Arizona Gun Dealers

A federal judge has permitted a lawsuit initiated by the Mexican government against five Arizona gun stores to proceed, rejecting a request for a delay linked to a similar case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez ruled on Monday against the motion from attorneys representing the gun stores—Diamondback Shooting Sports, SnG Tactical, Ammo AZ, Sprague’s Sports, and The Hub—who argued that the Supreme Court’s review of related matters warranted a postponement.

This lawsuit is part of a broader legal effort initiated by the Mexican government over three years ago aimed at curbing gun trafficking. The initial suit, filed in August 2021, targets U.S. gun manufacturers and a Boston-area wholesaler, alleging that firearms manufactured in the U.S. are funneled into Mexico through “operación hormiga,” or “ant operation,” a scheme involving small straw purchases made for illicit smuggling.

Mexican officials claim that firms like Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. generate approximately $170 million annually by selling weapons to corrupt dealers in the U.S. Notably, Colt Manufacturing purportedly designs specific models for the Mexican market, including the “Emiliano Zapata 1911,” engraved with a phrase attributed to the revolutionary leader.

In October 2021, Tucson-based attorneys from DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy filed the suit against the Arizona stores, alleging they facilitate the trafficking of military-style weapons and ammunition to Mexican drug cartels. This case marks a significant legal milestone, as it represents the first action taken by a sovereign nation against U.S. gun retailers, emphasizing that these stores should be aware that their actions contribute to criminal activities in both Mexico and the U.S.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the related case last year, with oral arguments set for March 4, 2024. Meanwhile, the Arizona gun stores’ legal team sought to pause the proceedings until the Supreme Court’s ruling, claiming that the justices’ decision would likely influence and potentially dismiss the claims made by Mexico.

Jeffrey Malsch, an attorney with the New York-based Renzulli Law Firm, argued that the suit is filed in violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law that protects gun manufacturers from civil liability stemming from the criminal use of their products. If the Supreme Court upholds the PLCAA, Malsch contended, the case against the Arizona stores would become untenable.

While requesting a delay until July 8, Malsch stressed the importance of expediency in the judicial process, emphasizing the need for clarity from the Supreme Court on such impactful issues. Yet, during a prior hearing, Marquez dismissed several defenses raised by the stores.

Mexican attorneys insisted the trial should continue, countering the gun stores’ claims and highlighting that their defenses regarding the manufacturers differed significantly. Ryan O’Neal, representing Yetwin & Lacy, argued, “Defendants may not have their cake and eat it too,” underscoring that the balance of harms favors Mexico in this case.

In a four-page ruling issued on Monday, Marquez expressed her expectation that the Supreme Court would reach a decision by June 2025. She noted that a brief delay would still hinder the resolution process, given the considerable ongoing harm alleged by Mexico, which seeks urgent injunctive relief.

According to Marquez, the gun stores would only incur unnecessary litigation costs should the Supreme Court provide a favorable ruling regarding the manufacturers, and it remained unclear how such a ruling would directly impact the case in Arizona.