The Kansas Supreme Court recently considered the scope of immunity for firearm sellers under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).[1] In Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, the court determined PLCAA immunity barred the plaintiff’s claims against two sellers of a handgun because the person who shot him voluntarily pulled the trigger of the gun on a public road, which is a criminal, strict-liability offense in Kansas.[2]

André Lewis purchased a handgun from Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC; the gun was imported by Beretta USA.[3] While sitting in car at a red light on a public road in Kansas with his friend, Marquise Johnson, Lewis attempted to prove that he could disassemble the gun.[4] He believed that he needed to pull the trigger to do so, and he also believed that the gun would not fire because he had removed the magazine.[5] Lewis was mistaken. The gun had a round in the chamber, and so when Lewis pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at Johnson, he shot Johnson in the legs.[6]

Johnson sued Bass Pro and Beretta USA (collectively, “Firearm Sellers”), alleging the handgun was defective because it lacked certain safety features.[7] Firearm Sellers moved for summary judgment, asserting they were immune under the PLCAA because Lewis intentionally pulled the trigger while on a public road, which was a criminal act.[8] The district court granted the motion.[9] The court of appeals reversed, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.[10]

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Wall, the court examined the PLCAA and determined that it barred Johnson’s suit. The PLCAA bars plaintiffs from bringing a “qualified civil liability action” against manufacturers and sellers of guns or ammunition that are shipped in interstate commerce.[11] Congress provided that a

“qualified civil liability action” . . . shall not include . . . an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense.[12]

Interpreting this language, the court determined that “the PLCAA bars a product-liability action if: (1) a voluntary act caused the gun to fire, even if the person did not intend to discharge the weapon, and (2) the shooting, considering both the voluntary act and discharge, constitutes a criminal offense.”[13] In reaching this conclusion, the court recognized that “volitional” had the same meaning as “voluntary” and modified “act,” and that only the act that caused the discharge (not the discharge itself) must be voluntary.[14] The court then determined that “‘criminal offense’ refers specifically to the violation of criminal law,” and it recognized that a person can commit a criminal offense without any culpable mental state.[15] And the court concluded that “the incident causing the injury—that is, the gun’s discharge coupled with the volitional act—must be a crime.”[16]

Before turning back to the case at hand, the court summarized the rule: “[F]irearm manufacturers and sellers may be immune from product-liability claims when someone deliberately pulls the trigger, causing an intentional or unintentional discharge, and the shooting—including the volitional act and discharge—constitutes a crime.”[17] Applying its rule, the court quickly determined that a volitional act (Lewis deliberately pulling the trigger) caused the gun to discharge, and that Lewis’ mistaken belief that pulling the trigger was necessary to disassemble the gun did not make his conduct involuntary.[18] And the shooting constituted a criminal offense because Lewis discharged the gun on a public road, which is a strict-liability crime in Kansas.[19] So whether Lewis intended to commit a crime was irrelevant; simply shooting the handgun on a public road was a crime. Ultimately, the court held that because “Lewis’ volitional act caused the gun’s discharge and his conduct constitute[d] a criminal offense, the PLCAA bar[red] Johnson’s product-liability suit against Firearm Sellers.”[20]

 

[1] 15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq.

[2] 567 P.3d 810 (Kan. 2025).

[3] Id. at 815.

[4] Id. at 814.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. Johnson initially sued Lewis, but he later dismissed that suit with prejudice. Id. at 816. Johnson also sued Beretta Italy, which manufactured the gun, but Beretta Italy did not join the motion for summary judgment. Id.

[8] Id. at 815.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v) (emphasis added).

[13] Id. at 820.

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 821.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 823.

[18] Id. at 824–25.

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 825.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].