Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(10) Commitments and Contingencies: Litigation In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we breached the earn-out and other provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In May 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In June 2018, Gemini appealed the decision dismissing its complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit. On July 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court to perform a traditional forum non conveniens analysis. On September 6, 2019, the parties stipulated that they do not contest that the venue is proper in the District of Idaho. On November 4, 2019, we filed an answer to Gemini’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time of the signing of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim of fraud in the inducement. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. We are a defendant in five product liability cases and are aware of three other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana, or the City, against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the trial court granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. On July 8, 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. Briefing was completed in the Indiana Supreme Court on August 5, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied our petition to transfer. The case was returned to the trial court. In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting, filed in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, seeking a declaratory judgment that a Florida statute that provides firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity from liability when their legally manufactured and lawfully sold firearms are later used in criminal acts only applies to civil actions commenced by governmental agencies not private litigants. In August 2018, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. On December 6, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On December 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief. On December 13, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, with prejudice. On June 15, 2021, upon plaintiffs’ motion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, or the Court of Appeal, ruled that the Circuit Court’s November 21, 2019 order dismissing the case was not “final and appealable,” and ordered the Circuit Court to enter a final order of dismissal. On July 30, 2021, plaintiffs Frederic and Jennifer Guttenberg filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto on July 22, 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. On July 13, 2020, we filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. On February 11, 2021, the court granted our motion in part, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim, and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. The certification motion is scheduled to be heard in March of 2022. On March 2, 2021, we filed a motion for leave to appeal the court’s refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice. No hearing date for that motion has yet been set. In May 2020, we were named in an action related to the Chabad of Poway synagogue shooting that took place on April 27, 2019. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego – Central, and asserts claims against us for product liability, unfair competition, negligence, and public nuisance. The plaintiffs allege they were present at the synagogue on the day of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. On September 3, 2020, we filed a demurrer and motion to strike, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion on December 18, 2020. Our reply to plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on January 15, 2021. On February 16, 2021, several law professors with First Amendment expertise filed an amicus brief in support of our demurrer. Plaintiffs responded to the law professors’ brief on March 8, 2021. On March 23, 2021, Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, filed an amicus brief in response to the law professors’ amicus brief. We responded to Public Citizen’s brief on May 10, 2021. The hearing on our motion was held on June 8, 2021. On July 2, 2021, the court granted our motion in part, and reversed it in part, ruling that: (1) the PLCAA barred plaintiffs’ product liability action; (2) plaintiffs did not have standing to maintain an action under the Unfair Competition Law for personal injury related damages, but giving plaintiffs leave to amend to plead an economic injury; and (3) the PLCAA did not bar plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence and public nuisance actions because plaintiffs had alleged that we violated 18 U.S.C Section 922(b)(4), which generally prohibits the sale of fully automatic “machineguns.” On August 13, 2021, we filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. We are a defendant in an action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 4, 2021, the Mexican Government filed an action against several U.S.-based firearms manufacturers and a firearms distributor, claiming defendants design, market, distribute, and sell firearms in ways they know routinely arm the drug cartels in Mexico. Plaintiff alleges negligence, public nuisance, design defect, unjust enrichment and restitution, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party. John Pidcock, as trustee of the ASPC Creditor Trust (appointed under the plan of reorganization of AcuSport Corp., or AcuSport, as debtor in possession under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), is the plaintiff in two separate actions against us in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The first seeks recovery of alleged preferential transfers received by us from AcuSport in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. The second seeks turnover of goods allegedly owed to AcuSport by us under one or more of our promotional programs in the amount of $1.5 million. We have filed answers to both complaints denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Mediation was held on December 10, 2020, and was unsuccessful in resolving these cases. A second mediation was held on June 23, 2021 and resulted in the settlement of all actions against us by the plaintiff. The final settlement agreement was signed by all parties in August 2021. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded. In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, premises, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $50.0 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims. We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management. We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs. We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable shown in other current assets and other assets. At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(10) Commitments and Contingencies:

Litigation

In January 2018, Gemini Technologies, Incorporated, or Gemini, commenced an action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the District Court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we breached the earn-out and other provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements between the parties in connection with our acquisition of the Gemtech business from Gemini. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment interpreting various terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and damages in the sum of $18.6 million. In May 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In June 2018, Gemini appealed the decision dismissing its complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit. On July 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court to perform a traditional forum non conveniens analysis. On September 6, 2019, the parties stipulated that they do not contest that the venue is proper in the District of Idaho. On November 4, 2019, we filed an answer to Gemini’s complaint and a counterclaim against Gemini and its stockholders at the time of the signing of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim of fraud in the inducement. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action.

We are a defendant in five product liability cases and are aware of three other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana, or the City, against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief, allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. In January 2018, the trial court granted defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing the case in its entirety. In February 2018, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, the trial court’s dismissal of the City’s complaint. On July 8, 2019, defendants filed a Petition to Transfer jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court. Briefing was completed in the Indiana Supreme Court on August 5, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court denied our petition to transfer. The case was returned to the trial court.

In May 2018, we were named in an action related to the Parkland, Florida shooting, filed in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, seeking a declaratory judgment that a Florida statute that provides firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity from liability when their legally manufactured and lawfully sold firearms are later used in criminal acts only applies to civil actions commenced by governmental agencies not private litigants. In August 2018, we moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. On December 6, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On December 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief. On December 13, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, with prejudice. On June 15, 2021, upon plaintiffs’ motion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, or the Court of Appeal, ruled that the Circuit Court’s November 21, 2019 order dismissing the case was not “final and appealable,” and ordered the Circuit Court to enter a final order of dismissal. On July 30, 2021, plaintiffs Frederic and Jennifer Guttenberg filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

We are a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto on July 22, 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. On July 13, 2020, we filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. On February 11, 2021, the court granted our motion in part, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in public nuisance and strict liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim, and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. The certification motion is scheduled to be heard in March of 2022. On March 2, 2021, we filed a motion for leave to appeal the court’s refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice. No hearing date for that motion has yet been set.

In May 2020, we were named in an action related to the Chabad of Poway synagogue shooting that took place on April 27, 2019. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego – Central, and asserts claims against us for product liability, unfair competition, negligence, and public nuisance. The plaintiffs allege they were present at the synagogue on the day of the incident and suffered physical and/or emotional injury. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. On September 3, 2020, we filed a demurrer and motion to strike, seeking to dismiss

plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion on December 18, 2020. Our reply to plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on January 15, 2021. On February 16, 2021, several law professors with First Amendment expertise filed an amicus brief in support of our demurrer. Plaintiffs responded to the law professors’ brief on March 8, 2021. On March 23, 2021, Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, filed an amicus brief in response to the law professors’ amicus brief. We responded to Public Citizen’s brief on May 10, 2021. The hearing on our motion was held on June 8, 2021. On July 2, 2021, the court granted our motion in part, and reversed it in part, ruling that: (1) the PLCAA barred plaintiffs’ product liability action; (2) plaintiffs did not have standing to maintain an action under the Unfair Competition Law for personal injury related damages, but giving plaintiffs leave to amend to plead an economic injury; and (3) the PLCAA did not bar plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence and public nuisance actions because plaintiffs had alleged that we violated 18 U.S.C Section 922(b)(4), which generally prohibits the sale of fully automatic “machineguns.” On August 13, 2021, we filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.

We are a defendant in an action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 4, 2021, the Mexican Government filed an action against several U.S.-based firearms manufacturers and a firearms distributor, claiming defendants design, market, distribute, and sell firearms in ways they know routinely arm the drug cartels in Mexico. Plaintiff alleges negligence, public nuisance, design defect, unjust enrichment and restitution, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We believe the claims asserted in the complaint have no merit, and we intend to aggressively defend this action.

We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any incident and any results from them or any injuries were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party.

John Pidcock, as trustee of the ASPC Creditor Trust (appointed under the plan of reorganization of AcuSport Corp., or AcuSport, as debtor in possession under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), is the plaintiff in two separate actions against us in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The first seeks recovery of alleged preferential transfers received by us from AcuSport in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. The second seeks turnover of goods allegedly owed to AcuSport by us under one or more of our promotional programs in the amount of $1.5 million. We have filed answers to both complaints denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Mediation was held on December 10, 2020, and was unsuccessful in resolving these cases. A second mediation was held on June 23, 2021 and resulted in the settlement of all actions against us by the plaintiff. The final settlement agreement was signed by all parties in August 2021.

We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded.

In addition, from time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, premises, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $50.0 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We believe that our accruals for product liability cases and claims are a reasonable quantitative measure of the cost to us of product liability cases and claims.

We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management.

We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and a review of the merit of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore, we have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided adequate accruals for defense costs.

We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable shown in other current assets and other assets.

At this time, an estimated range of reasonably possible additional losses relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made.