Despite having some of the strictest gun restrictions in the world, Mexico is plagued with gun violence driven by drug cartels who run many parts of the nation. Instead of facing the problem, the Mexican government seeks to deflect from its ineptitude – or complicity – by pretending it’s the fault of American companies that manufacture firearms.

Even more telling is the fact that 13 Democratic attorneys general have been colluding with the Mexican government to help them target gun manufacturers. Now, it appears the ball is in the Supreme Court.

Mexico claims the companies engaged in bad business by selling guns that hold more than 10 rounds, including semi-automatic rifles.

The Mexican government, which says the guns were smuggled across the border to commit crimes, is asking for billions in damages and for the court to impose an injunction on the companies so they have to meet new safety requirements.

…

Those being sued are: Smith & Wesson Brands Inc., Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., Glock Inc., Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Witmer Public Safety Group Inc., Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc., Interstate Arms, Colt’s Manufacturing Co. and Century International Arms Inc.

The gun companies' filing argues that “Mexico boasts some of the strictest gun laws in the world” and pointed out that “The country has only one firearm store – and it is located on a military base.”

At the same time, Mexico is presently suffering a scourge of violence at the hands of its drug cartels. But rather than take meaningful steps to solve that problem — improving border security, rooting out public corruption, and adequately supporting its police, for starters — the country has instead turned to litigation.

On the other side, Mexico’s government contends that 70 percent to 90 percent of firearms recovered from crime scenes are trafficked from the United States.

“For decades the Government and its citizens have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border, into criminal hands in Mexico. This flood is not a natural phenomenon or an inevitable consequence of the gun business or of U.S. gun laws. It is the foreseeable result of the Defendants’ deliberate actions and business practices,” the Mexican government alleges.

“Defendants design, market, distribute, and sell guns in ways they know routinely arm the drug cartels in Mexico. Defendants use reckless and corrupt gun dealers and dangerous and illegal sales practices that the cartels rely on to get their guns. Defendants design these guns to be easily modified to fire automatically and to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico.”

It is absolutely ridiculous that one even has to explain why Mexico’s lawsuit should result in an ignominious failure. But, here goes.

Firstly, the establishment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was aimed at shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits in the event that their products are used for criminal activity. It is intended to prevent precisely the type of lawsuit Mexico is bringing against these companies. This is why a district court initially rejected the case, noting that it prohibits lawsuits against gun companies when their products are used for nefarious purposes. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that Mexico can proceed with the lawsuit.

Of course, the reason for the law is obvious. The notion that gun companies should be held responsible for how bad actors use them is absurd on its face. It is akin to holding car manufacturers liable for car crashes caused by people misusing their vehicles. Companies are not responsible for evil people who use their products to harm others. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who signed on to a brief with two dozen other Republican attorneys general, argued that “American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals.”

“Rather than take responsibility, Mexico and anti-gun activists are trying to blame and bankrupt American companies that follow the law,” he added.

Knudsen touched on the crux of the matter: This has nothing to do with cracking down on the rampant violence plaguing Mexico. For the Mexican government, it is about deflecting responsibility for its failures. For the American anti-gunners working with them, it is about making it harder for people to keep and bear arms. What is sad about this situation is that neither entity seems interested in protecting Mexican citizens who become victims of this violence.

Lastly, if the Supreme Court allows this ridiculous legal ploy to proceed, it will open the floodgates for other governments to do the same. This could overwhelm U.S. courts while becoming a larger-scale legal assault on gun manufacturers. Mexico’s government is not the only one failing to protect its citizens. Letting them get away with this could empower others to scapegoat American gun companies.

The bottom line is that allowing a foreign entity to dictate America’s gun policies is about as sick as it gets. The fact that Democrats are actively collaborating with a foreign power to restrict the Second Amendment rights of American citizens shows exactly where their loyalties lie, and it is not with the American people. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will put an end to this farce.