Indiana Appeals Court Ends City of Gary’s Long-Running Lawsuit Against Gun Makers
0
4
0
One of the gun-control movement’s longest-running lawfare efforts has finally collapsed. On the 29th of December 2025, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a nearly 25-year-old lawsuit brought by the City of Gary, Indiana, against some of the nation’s largest firearm manufacturers. The court ruled that a 2024 state law barring local governments from suing gun companies applies retroactively—effectively wiping out the case in its entirety.
The decision marks what is likely the end of the road for one of the earliest and most aggressive attempts to hold the firearms industry liable for crimes committed by third parties using lawfully sold products. Writing for the panel in Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, Chief Judge Robert Altice made clear that the city had failed to establish any constitutional barrier to retroactive application of the statute. “Unfair as it may appear, the legislature can legally do exactly what it did in this case,” Altice wrote. “We cannot second-guess its public policy determinations in this regard.”
Unless the city seeks review from the Indiana Supreme Court, the ruling effectively extinguishes the final surviving lawsuit from the gun-control movement’s first wave of city-led legal attacks on the firearms industry. Gary first filed its lawsuit in 1999 as part of a coordinated national campaign backed by the gun-control group Brady United. Dozens of cities filed nearly identical lawsuits at the time, all attempting to bypass legislatures by using the courts to impose gun-control policies through civil liability.
The Gary suit named manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers—including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Colt, and Beretta—alleging that their lawful marketing and distribution practices contributed to illegal straw purchases and the city’s violent crime problem.
Every other lawsuit from that era was eventually dismissed or withdrawn. Gary’s case, however, lingered for decades, bouncing through multiple appeals and surviving long after similar efforts collapsed nationwide.
That unusual longevity prompted Indiana lawmakers to act. In 2024, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1235, reserving exclusive authority to sue firearm manufacturers to the state itself and stripping that power from cities and counties. Crucially, the law included language applying retroactively to August 27, 1999—just days before Gary filed its original complaint.
A trial court initially refused to dismiss the case, arguing that retroactive application would violate vested rights and result in a “manifest injustice.” The appellate court disagreed.
On Monday, December 29th, 2025, the panel upheld both the constitutionality of the statute and the legislature’s authority to apply it retroactively. “The General Assembly determined that the public interest would be served by denying political subdivisions the power to independently bring or maintain certain lawsuits against members of the firearms industry,” Altice wrote, noting that uniform application of the policy required it to apply to all such cases—including Gary’s.
Gun-control advocates declined to comment following the ruling. The firearms industry, however, welcomed the decision as a decisive rejection of decades-old legal activism. “This is a tremendous day for the rule of law, common sense, and the firearm industry,” said Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “The City of Gary never had a serious claim. Instead, it pursued a losing lawfare strategy to impose gun-control policies through the courts rather than the legislative process.”
While these lawsuits largely failed on the merits, they were instrumental in shaping the modern legal landscape—directly leading to state preemption laws and federal protections like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Indiana’s ruling reinforces what courts and legislatures across the country have repeatedly concluded: firearm manufacturers are not legally responsible for the criminal misuse of constitutionally protected products by third parties.
For gun owners, the decision represents more than the end of a single lawsuit—it is another reminder that the Second Amendment cannot be dismantled through legal end-runs when voters and lawmakers refuse to go along. At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we’ll continue to track and expose these lawfare efforts wherever they surface—and call out victories for freedom when they finally fall apart.
Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world. As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube Channel @2ifbyseatactical and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance.
Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.
