Mexico’s Claims in its Suit Against American Gun Makers Don’t Hold Water

Mexico’s amici in [Smith & Wesson v. Mexico] accuse us of denying “there has been a significant increase in gun violence in Mexico since the expiration of the U.S. assault weapons ban in 2004.” They fault us for “conflat[ing] the Mexican homicide rate . . . with the overall rate of national gun violence.” Actually, it was the Mexican government that argued “homicides in Mexico . . . increased dramatically beginning in 2004.” Mexico Complaint at ¶ 13 (emphasis added). And the Mexican government has focused its statistical case on the number of homicides and the homicide rate. E.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 14, 279, 440, 441, 442, 444, 450, 471, 472.

Our brief provided statistics—which the amici did not dispute—that “Mexico’s homicide rate was lower during each of the first three years after the ban’s expiration (2005–2007) than during any year in which the ban was in effect (1995–2003).” The plaintiff, the  Mexican executive branch, incorrectly told courts that Mexican homicides “increased dramatically beginning in 2004.”

In later years, Mexican homicides have [increased.] We argued that the increases were caused by the Mexican government’s military offensive against its own citizens, the militarization of public security forces, government corruption, the government’s failure to punish criminal conduct, and the Mexican government’s human rights violations—including unlawful killings by police and military, forced disappearance by government agents, torture committed by security forces, and violence against journalists. In other words, the homicide increase is the result of the Mexican government’s own misdeeds and failures, not the American manufacturers’ lawful activity.

ATF Traces of Firearms Seized in Mexico

Our statement in the amicus brief that “few Mexican crime guns are determined to have come from America” is factual. The Mexican government claimed that “Almost all guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico—70% to 90% of them—were trafficked from the U.S.” But this percentage is based on the number of firearms that are submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) for tracing. And relatively few guns used in Mexican crimes are submitted. Moreover, ATF’s report on Mexican traces includes the same “ATF Firearms Trace Data Disclaimer” ATF puts on every trace report, as required by federal law”

Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any investigative reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the federal government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.

Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.

We provided the example of 2008, in which 30,000 guns were seized by Mexican officials, but only 4,000 were successfully traced. While 3,480 of the 4,000 were traced to America, these 3,480 represent less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico. Thus, over 88 percent could not successfully be traced back to the U.S.