The Kansas Supreme Court recently delivered another strong endorsement of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), further solidifying its role as a shield for lawful commerce in the firearms industry. In Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC et al., the Court held that the PLCAA bars product liability and negligence claims against manufacturers and sellers when an injury results from a criminal misuse—even if the shooting was in some respects accidental.1
The Facts: A Tragic Mistake and a Lawsuit
André Lewis wanted to show off his new Beretta handgun to his friend, Marquise Johnson, while sitting in a car at a stoplight. Lewis tried to impress Johnson by quickly disassembling his handgun, but he made a critical mistake.
Lewis believed he needed to pull the trigger to remove the slide and assumed the gun could not fire without the magazine. In reality, a live round remained in the chamber. When Lewis pulled the trigger, the gun discharged and the bullet struck Johnson in the legs. Lewis drove Johnson to the hospital, but the injury was severe—doctors had to amputate Johnson’s left leg above the knee. Johnson sued Beretta (manufacturer and importer) and Bass Pro (retailer), alleging the gun lacked extra safety features.
Although the Beretta’s user manual clearly warned that the gun could fire even after removing the magazine—and explained how to disassemble it safely using the striker-deactivation button—Lewis didn’t follow those instructions. The frame of the handgun also displayed two warnings: “READ MANUAL BEFORE USE” and “FIRES WITHOUT MAGAZINE.” Lewis only skimmed the manual and glanced at Bass Pro’s “10 Commandments of Safe Gun Handling,” which included, “ALWAYS keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction” and “NEVER point at anything you don’t want to shoot.”
PLCAA in Practice: Volitional Acts and Criminal Offenses
The Kansas Supreme Court first determined that Johnson’s lawsuit qualified as a “qualified civil liability action” under the PLCAA. Under the statute, product liability claims are not barred if the firearm was used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable way. However, if someone’s voluntary act—such as pulling the trigger—causes the gun to discharge and that act is a crime, the PLCAA blocks the lawsuit.
The Court also examined the meaning of “volitional,” noting that while the term can be ambiguous, it generally means someone chooses or willfully does something. Johnson argued that Lewis’s trigger pull was not truly voluntary because he believed he had to do it to take the gun apart. The Court disagreed, holding that a mistaken belief does not make an act involuntary.
The Court’s analysis then focused on two key questions: Was the trigger pull “volitional,” and did it amount to a “criminal offense” under Kansas law?
- Volitional Act: The Court found that pulling the trigger—regardless of intent—was a voluntary act. The fact that Lewis misunderstood the mechanics did not make his action involuntary. If you choose to pull the trigger, you act volitionally.
- Criminal Offense: Kansas law makes it a strict liability crime to discharge a firearm on a public road. Intent doesn’t matter; the act itself is prohibited. Since Lewis pulled the trigger in a car on a public road, the statute applied.
Because both questions were answered in the affirmative, the Court ruled that the PLCAA shielded Beretta and Bass Pro from liability and upheld summary judgment in their favor.
Building on Gustafson: Consistency Across Courts
This Kansas decision closely parallels the reasoning in Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided just weeks earlier.2 As analyzed more fully in “Guns, Liability, and the Law: Why the Gustafson Decision Matters,” in Gustafson, the Court confirmed the PLCAA’s constitutionality and clarified that a “volitional act”—like a trigger pull—bars product liability claims when that act is criminal, even if the shooting was unintentional. Both courts recognized Congress’s clear intent: the PLCAA protects lawful businesses from liability when third parties misuse firearms in ways that violate criminal law.
Why Johnson Matters for the Industry
For defense counsel and their clients in the firearms sector, Johnson is more than just a technical win—it provides real, practical protection for lawful businesses facing lawsuits over the criminal misuse of firearms.
- PLCAA’s Protections Remain and Were Clarified: Johnson made clear that the law does not require proof of intent to harm. Instead, it focuses on whether a voluntary act—like pulling a trigger—occurred and whether that act was criminal under state law. This approach means that manufacturers and retailers are not exposed to liability for tragic but unintended events, so long as the misuse meets the statute’s criteria. The decision supports the foundational principle that businesses should not be punished when third parties misuse their products in violation of the law.
- Strict Liability Offenses Are Key: The Court’s reasoning also highlights the importance of state statutes that criminalize conduct regardless of intent. In Kansas, as in many other states, some firearm offenses are “strict liability”—the act itself is enough for criminal liability, regardless of the shooter’s mental state. This legal structure allows courts to resolve some claims at the summary judgment stage, sparing companies the expense and uncertainty of a jury trial. Johnson gives defense counsel a clear path to argue for early dismissal in similar cases, so long as the facts show a voluntary act and a criminal offense. However, most criminal offenses require proof that a person both engaged in prohibited conduct (the actus reus) and did so with a culpable mental state (the mens rea).
- A Blueprint for Future Cases: Perhaps most importantly, Johnson provides a clear, workable standard for defending against product liability and negligence claims in other jurisdictions. If a plaintiff’s injury results from a voluntary act that violates criminal law, the PLCAA bars the claim. This predictability is crucial for the industry, especially as plaintiffs continue to test the boundaries of the statute in courts nationwide. The decision also aligns closely with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s approach in Gustafson, reinforcing a growing consensus among courts and providing additional confidence to manufacturers and retailers across the country.
Takeaways
The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, is more than just another ruling. It’s a signal that courts are reading the PLCAA as Congress intended—providing real, practical protection for lawful businesses in the firearms industry. As legal challenges continue, this ruling, alongside Gustafson and others, offers a strong defense blueprint for US manufacturers and retailers facing claims over criminal misuse of firearms or ammunition.