Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (2026)
Prohibited actions
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. Except as provided in section 5(1) or 5(2) of this chapter, a person may not bring or maintain an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or seller for:
(1) recovery of damages resulting from, or injunctive relief or abatement of a nuisance relating to, the lawful:
(A) design;
(B) manufacture;
(C) marketing; or
(D) sale;
of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm; or
(2) recovery of damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm by a third party.
As added by P.L.19-2001, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.80-2004, SEC.3; P.L.106-2015, SEC.4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017).
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (2008 Repl.). After holding a hearing, the trial court denied the 12(C) motion but granted leave to KS&E and Ellis to file an amended answer.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 66 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Initially, it is important to consider that to the extent Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 operates in derogation of the common law, this court must strictly construe it.”
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 126 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 . [7] In 2005, the United States Congress enacted the PLCAA, which provides that "[a] qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court" and that "[a] qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005,…”
Dunham's Athleisure Corp. v. Keith Shepherd, 124 N.E.3d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “And the court concluded in relevant part that those questions of fact precluded a determination on summary judgment that Dunham's was immune from liability under Indiana Code Section 34-12-3-3. This certified interlocutory appeal ensued.”
Johnson v. Wev Works, LLC d/b/a Roam (S.D. Ind. 2024). “" Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (1). If the court finds that a plaintiff brought forth an action under a theory of recovery described in section 3(1), it is conclusive evidence that the action is groundless.”
Parsons v. Colt's Mfg. Co., LLC (nrap 5), 2021 NV 72 (Nev. 2021). “2017); cf Ind. Code Ann. § 34-12-3-3 (1) (providing immunity from suits related to the "lawful" design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of a firearm or ammunition).”
Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City Of Gary, Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “After three prior appeals, the most recent in 2019, some of the City’s claims for public nuisance and negligence survived the pleading stage; other claims were found to be barred by Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (the Immunity Statute), which was amended in 2015 to make it retroactive to…”
D W v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2025). “The legislature’s notable failure to extend the same broad immunity under [Section 34-12-3-3(2)] when a third party misuses a firearm cannot be chalked up to oversight.”
— Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3(1) — 3 cases
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (2008 Repl.). After holding a hearing, the trial court denied the 12(C) motion but granted leave to KS&E and Ellis to file an amended answer.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 66 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Initially, it is important to consider that to the extent Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 operates in derogation of the common law, this court must strictly construe it.”
Parsons v. Colt's Mfg. Co., LLC (nrap 5), 2021 NV 72 (Nev. 2021). “2017); cf Ind. Code Ann. § 34-12-3-3 (1) (providing immunity from suits related to the "lawful" design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of a firearm or ammunition).”
— Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3(1)(D) — 1 case
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (2008 Repl.). After holding a hearing, the trial court denied the 12(C) motion but granted leave to KS&E and Ellis to file an amended answer.”
— Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3(2) — 4 cases
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (2008 Repl.). After holding a hearing, the trial court denied the 12(C) motion but granted leave to KS&E and Ellis to file an amended answer.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 66 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Initially, it is important to consider that to the extent Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 operates in derogation of the common law, this court must strictly construe it.”
Dunham's Athleisure Corp. v. Keith Shepherd, 124 N.E.3d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “And the court concluded in relevant part that those questions of fact precluded a determination on summary judgment that Dunham's was immune from liability under Indiana Code Section 34-12-3-3. This certified interlocutory appeal ensued.”
D W v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2025). “The legislature’s notable failure to extend the same broad immunity under [Section 34-12-3-3(2)] when a third party misuses a firearm cannot be chalked up to oversight.”
— Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3(l)(D) — 1 case
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 34-12-3-3 (2008 Repl.). After holding a hearing, the trial court denied the 12(C) motion but granted leave to KS&E and Ellis to file an amended answer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.