Anti-Gun Lawyer Wants Cartel Demand to Erase Your AR-15 Rights
Jonathan Lowy, who helped represent the Mexican government in its failed lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers, now argues that cartel demand for AR-15s should count against the Second Amendment rights of millions of American owners. He made the case in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court for his group, Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV), in support of “assault weapon bans.” He repeated the argument in a Substack column. The brief targets the petitioners’ “common use” argument in the Viramontes case, which rests on production and sales totals for the rifles.
Key Details
The brief and column make several specific claims, and each one deserves a close look:
- The filer: GAGV, led by Jonathan Lowy, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Viramontes case.
- The core claim: Lowy says a large share of demand for U.S.-sold assault weapons comes from Mexican cartels and other foreign criminal groups.
- Straw purchases: The brief says hundreds of thousands of assault rifles are bought in the U.S. by straw purchasers for foreign criminal organizations. A rifle bought in Texas or Arizona and trafficked south still counts toward the U.S. sales total.
- Cartel prices: The brief says these rifles often sell for double the purchase price or more in Mexico.
- Trafficking estimate: The brief cites estimates of 250,000 to 1 million firearms trafficked from the U.S. to Mexico each year.
- Government purchases: A report by Shayl Attkisson, published last October, found the Mexican government was the top buyer of U.S. guns later traced to crime scenes in Mexico from 2016 to 2023.
- The overreach: Lowy’s trafficking figure covers all firearm types, not only the semi-automatic centerfire rifles at issue in Viramontes.
Background
The “common use” test comes from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Court held that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it said the Amendment does not cover “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Lower courts have spent years arguing over what those phrases mean for AR-15s and magazines. Sales data became central to that fight because it shows how many of these rifles Americans own.
The Supreme Court changed the framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, the government must show that a gun regulation fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Judges do not weigh the burden on gun owners against claimed public safety gains. Separately, in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico (2025), the Court unanimously rejected Mexico’s bid to hold U.S. manufacturers liable for cartel violence, relying on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That ruling ended the suit Lowy helped back, and his current brief reads like a second attempt to achieve the same goal through the Second Amendment.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This argument targets the rifles that millions of Americans already own. If courts accept that criminal demand weakens constitutional protection, the effect would reach every owner of a typical AR-15, not just the traffickers. States with existing assault weapon bans, including California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, would gain a ready-made justification to keep those bans and possibly to expand them. Owners in those states should expect that argument to appear in any ruling that touches on assault weapons.
Border-state owners face a different risk. Texas and Arizona dealers sell large volumes of rifles, and the trafficking narrative turns every legal sale into a suspect transaction. Expect more pressure on dealers to document straw-purchase red flags and more calls for background check expansion. Keep your purchase records organized. Know your state’s transport and storage rules before you cross state lines with a rifle.
DownRange Analysis
The brief has one useful point and one fatal flaw. The useful point is that the sales figures the petitioners use include guns that never reach a lawful owner. A rifle trafficked to Sinaloa still counts toward the U.S. total. The flaw is the legal theory. Under Heller, the question is whether law-abiding citizens commonly possess a weapon for lawful purposes. Criminal misuse was never the test. Lowy asks courts to do exactly what Bruen forbids: weigh the harm of a rule against the benefit the government claims. Interest balancing is dead, and a brief that depends on it starts from a losing position.
The popularity argument also cuts both ways, and Lowy avoids that. Revolvers remain protected even as semi-automatic pistols dominate the market. Market share does not cancel a constitutional right. Right now, the practical move is simple. Support the groups that file pro-Second Amendment briefs. Contact your senator and congressional representative. Track the Viramontes docket, because the Court’s language on common use will shape every assault weapon ban case that follows. Do not assume the Court will reject these bans on its own schedule. Make your voice part of the record.
