The dispute originated in Mexico's suing seven major U.S. gun makers and one gun wholesaler for billions of dollars in damages caused by the gun violence in Mexico's drug trade. Mexico is also demanding changes in the way guns are sold in the United States so Mexican narcotrafficantes can't acquire them. None of this is to say that Mexico doesn't have a gun violence, or more accurately, a rule-of-law problem. Mexico has one gun store but has a firearm homicide rate of 16.87 per 100,000. The US has nearly 78,000 licensed gun sellers and a firearm homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000. So the problem isn't access to guns. //

The case was very significant for two reasons. It is the first major test of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that largely indemnifies gun manufacturers and resellers from lawsuits as long as they follow applicable laws and regulations. If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the immunity claims in this case, American gun rights will disappear because manufacturers and firearms dealers will be sued into oblivion. The second reason the case is important is that Mexico's theory could be applied to any product that has the potential to be misused. Liquor distillers could be held liable for drunk-driving deaths.