Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV) is a litigation group formed in 2022 that has brought legal challenges agaisnt the United States’s civilian firearms ownership laws. The group pursues litigation against firearm manufacturers aimed at tightening gun restrictions and increasing regulations. It advocates universal background checks, banning civilians from owning certain rifles and ammunition magazines, licensing and registration for all gun owners and guns owned, ending bulk sales and straw sales of guns, and “strict regulation and oversight of gun dealers, with prompt revocation of selling privileges for irresponsible dealers.” ^{1 2 3}

Background and Leadership

Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV) was founded in 2022 by Jonathan Lowy, an attorney and gun-control activist who had previously worked for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In an interview with gun-control advocacy media outlet The Trace, Lowy argued that American political pressure and legal protections for firearms ownership made it necessary to use foreign governments to coerce Americans into stricter gun laws, stating, “I think policymakers are much less constrained by pro-gun politics outside the U.S. That led me to decide that pressure from the international community was a much-needed part of the solution to gun violence, both in the U.S. and around the world.” ⁴

Court Cases

Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV) sues gun manufacturers for deaths resulting from illegal use of weapons. GAGV claims that gun companies have irresponsible practices and suggests that holding them monetarily responsible for the illegal actions carried out by criminals can make the companies unprofitable and reduce the number of guns available. GAGV takes cases from outside of the United States because American gun manufacturers cannot use the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) as a defense when working with cases from countries like Mexico and Canada. GAGV has had a supporting role in cases against gun manufacturers and gun dealers in the United States including cases against Smith and Wesson, Diamond Shooting Sports, and Springfield Armory. ⁵

Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith and Wesson

Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith and Wesson is a case in which the Government of Mexico sued gun manufacturer Smith and Wesson claiming that the manufacturer facilitated illegal gun trafficking into Mexico, causing significant harm in the country. Lower U.S. courts originally ruled the suit could not be pursued because Smith and Wesson was protected by the PLCAA. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal but stated that Mexico was suing for proximate cause and the case was sent back to the lower courts in 2024 to continue with proceedings. GAGV’s Jonathan Lowy is one of the lawyers for the Government of Mexico, along with anti-trust lawyer Steve Shadowen. ^{5 6}

Price v. Smith and Wesson

In 2019, victims of a mass shooting in Toronto sued Smith and Wesson for designing the gun used in the shooting. Price claimed that Smith and Wesson did not put authorized user technology, such as passcodes or fingerprint scanners, on their guns and if that technology had been present the shooter would not have been able to commit the illegal shooting. In March 2024, an Ontario Supreme Court Judge denied certifying a class action lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the authorized user technology would have stopped the shooting and that the harm done was a result of what the shooter did, not how they did it. The plaintiff hired GAGV’s Jonathan Lowy as a U.S. legal consultant for the case. ^{5 7 8}

Gustafson v. Springfield Armory

Gustafson v. Springfield Armory is a case in which the parents of a 13-year-old boy, who was shot by another young boy with a gun thought to be empty, sued Springfield Armory initially claiming the company was negligent to sell the gun. Springfield Armory claimed it was protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Gustafsons then claimed PLCAA was not relevant and instead argued that the PLCAA was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment. In 2019, a trial judge deemed the PLCAA barred liability. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the PLCAA was unconstitutional, and the case was sent to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The final ruling came in 2024, after the federal government intervened, claiming that U.S. Congress had the express authority to enact the PLCAA and it in no way violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled the PLCAA to be constitutional, sustained Springfield Armory’s preliminary objections, and dismissed the suit. GAGV’s John Lowy argued on behalf of the Gustafsons. ^{5 9 10}

1. “Advocacy.” Global Action on Gun Violence. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://actiononguns.org/advocacy/.
2. “The Problem.” Global Action on Gun Violence. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://actiononguns.org/the-problem/.
3. “Action Strategy.” Global Action on Gun Violence. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://actiononguns.org/action-strategy/.
4. Brownlee, Chip. “Could International Pressure Ultimately Strengthen U.S. Gun Laws?” The Trace, January 16, 2024. https://www.thetrace.org/2024/01/global-action-gun-violence-mexico-courts/.
5. “Litigation.” Global Action on Gun Violence. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://actiononguns.org/litigation/.
6. “Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands Inc., No. 22-1823 (1st Cir. 2024).” Justia Law. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/22-1823/22-1823-2024-01-22.html.
7. Feore, Thomas, and Gannon Beaulne. “Certification Denied in Proposed Class Proceeding Against Gun Manufacturer for Mass Shooting.” JD Supra, March 14, 2024. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/certification-denied-in-proposed-class-9436441/.
8. Legate-Wolfe, Annie, and Foreman & Company. “Price v. Smith & Wesson Corp. – Donoghue v. Stephenson and the Snail That Keeps Rearing Its (Beautiful) Head.” OBA.org. March 31, 2021. https://www.oba.org/Sections/Class-Actions-Law/Articles/Articles-2021/March-2021/Price-v-Smith-Wesson-Corp-Donoghue-v-Stephe.
9. “Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.” Case Text. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://casetext.com/case/gustafson-v-springfield-inc-2#:~:text=The%20trial%20court%20concluded%20PLCAA,objections%2C%20and%20dismissed%20the%20complaint.
10. “Gustafson v. Springfield: PAA.” Pennsylvania Appellate Advocate. Accessed October 14, 2024. https://paablog.com/gustafson-v-springfield/.