By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Unanimous Decision in favor of Smith & Wesson; two machine gun cases—United States v. Justin Bryce Brown and United States v. Morgan Caser; RMGO, et al. v. Town of Superior, et al: Case No. 22-cv-02680-NYW-TPO: town ordinances in Colorado.
SCOTUS
Conferences through the end of the 2024-2025 term
For the rest of the 2024-2025 term, the scheduled conference dates are June 11, 18, and 25. Several Second Amendment cases involving felon-in-possession charges are before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) for certiorari.
The Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 5, addressed whether U.S. gun manufacturers could be held liable by the Mexican government for violence caused by drug cartels using their firearms. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the First Circuit’s ruling in an opinion by Justice Kagan, with concurring opinions by Justices Thomas and Jackson. The Court held that Mexico’s complaint failed to plausibly allege that the gun manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful firearm sales to traffickers, as required for the PLCAA predicate exception. The Court emphasized that PLCAA was designed to prevent lawsuits holding manufacturers liable for third-party criminal misuse, and Mexico’s theory would create an overly broad exception, undermining the statute’s purpose. It also held that the allegations did not show affirmative acts by manufacturers to facilitate illegal sales or intent to promote criminal activity. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background: In August 2021, Mexico filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against seven U.S. gun manufacturers (including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, Glock, and others) and a distributor, alleging their business practices facilitated illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels, exacerbating violence and imposing significant costs on Mexico (e.g., healthcare, security). The district court dismissed the case, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits for harm caused by third-party misuse of firearms. The First Circuit reversed, finding that Mexico’s claims plausibly fit within the PLCAA’s predicate exception, which allows lawsuits if manufacturers knowingly violate statutes related to firearm sales or marketing and the violation proximately causes harm. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on Oct. 4, 2024, to review the First Circuit’s decision.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the First Circuit’s ruling in an opinion by Justice Kagan, with concurring opinions by Justices Thomas and Jackson. The Court held that Mexico’s complaint failed to plausibly allege that the gun manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful firearm sales to traffickers, as required for the PLCAA predicate exception. The Court emphasized that PLCAA was designed to prevent lawsuits holding manufacturers liable for third-party criminal misuse, and Mexico’s theory would create an overly broad exception, undermining the statute’s purpose. The allegations did not show affirmative acts by manufacturers to facilitate illegal sales or intent to promote criminal activity. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Although a 9-0 decision is a hard one to attack, several posts framed the case as a proxy for gun control debates, with Mexico’s lawsuit seen by critics as an attempt to impose globalist restrictions on U.S. gun rights. Supporters of Mexico viewed it as a legitimate effort to address cartel violence fueled by U.S. guns. In contrast, others suggested that a ruling for Mexico could have weakened PLCAA protections, while the actual ruling reinforced the gun industry’s legal shield, potentially discouraging similar lawsuits.
Several pro-Second Amendment groups celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case and its eventual ruling, framing Mexico’s lawsuit as an attack on U.S. gun rights and sovereignty.
Notice from CRPA on X
The CCW Reckoning Project rumbles on with the announcement that CRPA, @GunOwners, and @GunOwnersCA will be filing lawsuits against both Santa Clara and the Los Angeles Police Department. Both jurisdictions continue to administer CCW processes that DO NOT comply with the standard set in Bruen.
US Court of Appeals
Below are two cases addressing machine guns before two different Courts of Appeal. In both cases, the District Courts found that the federal machine gun statutes were unconstitutional—United States v. Justin Bryce Brown and United States v. Morgan.
Court of Appeal
United States v. Justin Bryce Brown: Case No. 25-60102: The United States filed its brief on April 24. On May 14, the Court granted the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence permission to file amicus Curiae briefs, which they did on May 15. On May 27, the Appellee, Mr. Brown, filed his brief. And on June 3, Gun Owners of America filed an amicus curiae. Another amicus brief was filed by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation as well.
District Court
Background: United States v. Justin Bryce Brown: No. 3:23-CR-123-CWR-ASH: In 2022, law enforcement raided the home of Justin Bryce Brown, investigating his alleged receipt of international shipments of so-called “machinegun conversion devices.” During the raid, authorities seized an AR-15-style rifle equipped with a three-position safety selector switch. During a later examination, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) claimed that the third selector position allowed the firearm to fire fully automatically. Accordingly, ATF classified the firearm as a “machinegun.” Mr. Brown moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute’s criminalization of his peaceful possession of a firearm within his home violates the Second Amendment, as applied under federal law. The district court granted Mr. Brown’s motion. The United States timely appealed.
Court of Appeal
United States v. Morgan Caser No: 24-3141 (10th Cir., filed Sept. 20, 2024): The government appealed to the Tenth Circuit (Case No. 24-3141, filed Sept. 20, 2024), where the case remains pending. [11181050] Oral argument notice filed. This matter is set for IN PERSON oral argument on 7/08/2025 at 9:00 A.M. Mountain Time in Courtroom II of the Byron White United States Courthouse, Denver, CO. A video has been produced by Attorney Tom Grieve on this case.
District Court
Background: United States v. Morgan: Case No. 23-10047-JWB was decided on Aug. 26, 2024, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City. Judge John W. Broome dismissed charges against defendant Tamori Morgan for unlawful possession of machine guns under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The decision was based on Second Amendment grounds, applying the Supreme Court’s framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024).
Background: On April 17, 2023, a federal grand jury in Wichita indicted Tamori Morgan for possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15.300 caliber machine gun and a machine gun conversion device (a “Glock switch”). Morgan’s federal public defender, David Freund, filed a motion to dismiss in November 2023, arguing that the machine gun ban under § 922(o) violated the Second Amendment under Bruen’s historical tradition test. The government argued that machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment, citing District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which suggested that bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons, like machine guns, are constitutional and that there is a historical tradition of regulating such firearms.
District Court
Colorado: Tenth Circuit:
On May 8, and June 4, the Defendants filed supplemental motions for Summary Judgment, with the Plaintiffs filing on June 5.
Background: After two different judges issued Temporary Restraining orders to halt the bans on the sale, possession and transfer of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles in the towns of Boulder and Superior, the following cases were joined: RMGO v. The town of Superior; RMGO v. The City of Louisville, Colorado; and RMGO v. The City of Boulder, Colorado and Board of County commissioners of Boulder County. For simplicity, this case will now be called:
RMGO, et al. v. Town of Superior, et al: Case No. 22-cv-02680-NYW-TPO.
Background: On Oct. 20, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for Summary Judgement, and on the same day, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude Strike / Motion to Partially Strike Expert Reports and Partially Exclude Testimony of Mark Passamaneck and a motion for Summary Judgement. The plaintiffs filed more briefs in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment in December 2023. In January 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of Stay and Supplemental Expert Discovery with a response by the defendants. On July 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Leave to file Supplemental Authority, which Judge Nina Y. Wang granted on Aug. 19, 2024. On Oct. 3, 2024, Judge Wang denied both plaintiffs and defendants summary judgment and plaintiffs and ordered both parties to show cause why summary judgment should not enter in favor of Defendants.
