The US Supreme Court listens to the arguments of two US firearms companies, accused by the Mexican government of encouraging the violence of drug cartels.
The United States Supreme Court listened to arguments on a claim of 10,000 million dollars that Mexico presented against the main weapons manufacturers in the United States, claiming that its commercial practices have fed the armed violence of drug cartels.
Manufacturers reject those statements. They appealed to the Supreme Court to cancel a ruling that allowed demand to advance, despite the fact that US law greatly protects the demands to arms manufacturers.
Depending on how the Court fails, this could also affect a narrow legal path that helped the families of mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to ensure a 73 million dollar agreement with the Remington manufacturer.
Mexico has strict arms laws and only has a store where people can buy firearms legally. However, the powerful drug cartels introduce thousands of weapons into the country.
The Mexican government states that 70 % of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit argues that companies knew that weapons were sold through traffickers who introduced them to contraband in Mexico and decided to take advantage of that market.
The defendants include renowned manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Gock. The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and if the Court is put on the side of Mexico, it would still have to prove the accusations.
The manufacturers claim that there is no evidence that the industry allows traffic and disagree with Mexico's data on how many weapons originate in the United States. They argue that it is the responsibility of the Mexican government, and not of American weapons manufacturers, enforce the laws and combat crime.
The industry is protected from most civil demands that arise from crimes committed with firearms under a law of 20 years ago, although Mexico has argued that it does not apply to crimes committed outside the United States.
The arms companies are asking the magistrates to annul a ruling of the Court of Appeals that allowed the case to advance.
Arms companies have argued that they have done nothing but manufacture and sell legal products.
“If Mexico is right, then all the forces of the United States order have overlooked the greatest criminal conspiracy in history, which operates in front of their noses, and Budweiser (beer manufacturer) is responsible for all accidents caused by minors, since he knows that adolescents buy beer, drunk drunk and collide,” Noel Francisco Francisco, the lawyer who defends the companies of arms.
The task of the Supreme Court is simply deciding whether the case can move on, Catherine Stetson, the lawyer who represents Mexico, told judges.
“We are at the beginning of this case. This court does not have to endorse Mexico's allegations, but must assume that they are true,” said Stetson. “Mexico must have the opportunity to prove its case.”
(With information from AP and Reuters)