Inter-American Court of Human Rights Issues Gun Trafficking ‘Advisory’

Had you ever heard of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights before today? If you did, it’s probably something you heard in passing and didn’t pay much attention to it, especially if you found out that while it says “American” in the name, it’s about most Latin and South America, as well as the Caribbean, not us.

It matters today because Mexico, after having been lambasted before the United States Supreme Court over its lawsuit against American gun companies, took its complaints to this court.

And, of course, they were the same complaints we’ve heard before.

This is the context under which Mexico brought two civil lawsuits in U.S. courts against gun manufacturers and stores, respectively, alleging that their negligent practices allowed for the illicit trafficking to occur. The case brought against gun manufacturers before a District Court in Boston ended up being dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The second lawsuit, brought against five gun stores in Tucson, Arizona, has continued after the Supreme Court’s ruling, with the parties currently in discovery. 

Additionally, and as part of a broader legal strategy, Mexico also requested an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, proposing questions on two main issues: i) the scope of the responsibility of private entities devoted to the manufacture, distribution, and sales of firearms, with respect to negligent commercial practices that result in human rights violations in the Americas; and ii) the efforts that States must undertake to ensure judicial protection to the victims of gun violence as a result of such negligent practices. 

Of course, these days, the Mexican cartels are getting firepower that we can’t get, including things like rocket launchers. They’re getting machine guns as well, likely those made after 1986, so again, not something most of us can get lawfully.

Unsurprisingly, a court that has no obligation to respect the Second Amendment decided that Mexico was totally in the right and that the US is totally in the wrong, even if the gun companies follow all federal laws on the matter, have no way to actually know who the bad actors are, and have no obligation to act as if they do.

However, the funny part is that the writer wants us to know that this is, in fact, a very big deal.

One key aspect that makes this advisory opinion so important – and that truly advances the law on this subject matter – is that it addresses in more detail the obligations that private entities (such as gun manufacturers, distributors, or sellers) have towards the illicit trafficking of firearms. In particular, the Court indicated that the duty of oversight by the State implies that it must ensure that private companies implement compliance measures in order to avoid or minimize the risks of human rights violations because of their activities (para. 91). In this regard, the Court cited its previous jurisprudence (see Caso de los Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris y otros) v. Honduras, para. 51; and Caso Habitantes de La Oroya v. Perú, para. 114) to link this obligation to the broader notion that companies must adopt, on their own, preemptive measures for the protection of the human rights of their workers, as well as to avoid their activities having negative impacts in the communities in which they operate (para. 92). 

This is not a minor thing. The recognition that private actors have a role in the prevention and combat of the illicit trafficking of firearms widens the spectrum of responsibility and acknowledges that this criminal activity goes way beyond States’ obligations in terms of legislation and enforceability. It strikes a chord when assessing the negligence that companies in the gun industry have in their business practices. This reasoning indicates that the adequate protection of human rights necessarily implies an integral analysis of the chain of production, distribution, and commercialization of arms. The Court even mentions that the obligation to adopt mitigation measures and accountability mechanisms for damages caused, must be regulated by States but also implemented by private companies of that sector (see paras. 97-99). 

This also links to the obligation recognized by the Inter-American Court for effective remedies. In the case of the trafficking of illicit arms, States have the duty to ensure effective judicial remedies for any impacts caused to human rights, both at the national and transnational levels, and whether by the State itself or by a third party when it can be demonstrated that there was a lack of compliance of their due diligence obligations regarding prevention (para. 102). This is in stark contrast with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gives the gun industry in the U.S. unique protection from civil claims, depriving victims from effective judicial remedies.

…

As Jonathan Lowy and I have already said elsewhere, “the complaint Mexico filed showed the world how the gun industry is part of the gun violence problem, and how it could also be part of the solution by cutting off the flow of illegal guns to criminals.” Now the Inter-American Court has also validated these arguments. 

That would actually mean something if we were talking about an actual court.

The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has no actual authority outside of the countries that have chosen to be a part of it. Considering the history of human rights abuses by many of these countries–look at the prison systems in literally all of the member states, for example–I’m not really going to trip over myself to worry about what they think of the gun rights of ordinary Americans.

Their “validation” of Mexico’s arguments doesn’t actually matter except for those looking for some so-called authority to actually provide that validation. 

We live in the United States, and as American citizens, we’re subject to the laws of this country. That also stands for the gun companies that were targeted by this action. And it seems unlikely that this “court” actually bothered to take US law into account.

As it stands, exporting arms out of the country to anywhere without appropriate approval is a crime. 

These other countries have a violent crime problem, often far greater than anything we’ve ever seen here, and they’re just looking for someone to blame. They don’t comprehend how their own nations’ issues aren’t the result of guns, but of people who want guns. Like it or not, that’s just how it falls, and those guns are going to come from somewhere.

That’s not excusing those who provide those guns, mind you. I’m just saying that the problem won’t go away even if we could lock down the borders–but that’s racist, apparently–and keep every firearm from getting out, someone else would fill that demand because the problem is the demand itself.

So while the author of this piece is convinced this is a very big deal, it’s only a big deal to those who seem to think this court actually matters. It “validated” something that accuses a nation they’re all resentful of to some degree or another of wrongdoing. That’s all that happened. They had a bias going in, it was confirmed because they didn’t really give a flip about American laws like the Second Amendment, and now get to pat themselves on the back.

Meanwhile, anti-gunners will pretend this means something, too, and it’ll just be a major annoyance for everyone else.

Sovereign nations don’t bend the knee to the will of other nations simply because those other nations don’t like certain rights.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.