On June 24, 2025, RLF secured another victory for one of its firearm industry clients, an Ohio-based shooting range, when a state court granted a motion to dismiss based on the immunity provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”). The court dismissed all claims against the shooting range pursuant to the PLCAA and found that the plaintiff failed to show any valid legal basis for avoiding dismissal based on the PLCAA.
The plaintiff was a customer of the shooting range and was standing outside the firing lane when another customer was recklessly handling his personal pistol. The other customer turned away from the firing lane and pointed the muzzle of his pistol in the plaintiff’s direction when he unintentionally discharged his pistol, causing a bullet to strike the plaintiff in the right leg. The customer was charged with Negligent Assault in violation of Ohio criminal law, and entered a no contest plea. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court against the customer who discharged the ammunition and the shooting range. The plaintiff alleged the shooting range was negligent in failing to properly monitor the range and in allowing the customer to use the range without sufficient instruction. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff attempted to circumvent the PLCAA by pleading claims for negligent entrustment and negligence per se, which are amongst the limited exceptions to PLCAA immunity. The plaintiff argued that the shooting range sold ammunition to the customer, negligently entrusting it to him, despite his inability to fully understand English. The plaintiff also claimed that the shooting range was liable for negligence per se because it allegedly violated a local safety regulation applicable to shooting ranges.
RLF argued, and the court agreed, that the plaintiff’s allegations could not support claims for negligent entrustment or negligence per se as a matter of law, and there is no exception to the PLCAA for general negligence claims. Because no exception to the PLCAA applies, the court agreed that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunity statute. This is an early win for RLF’s client, allowing it to avoid lengthy and burdensome discovery. The ruling is also the correct result under the law. As the Supreme Court recently affirmed in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U. S. ____ (2025), PLCAA was enacted precisely to prohibit lawsuits like this one where the claims arise from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition by a third party.
Renzulli Law Firm, LLP vigorously defends its firearm industry clients nationwide regularly obtaining successful results. If you have any questions concerning firearms related litigation, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.