by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

A class action lawsuit has been filed in federal district court in California against Dr. Ignatius Piazza and Front Sight, the firearms training facility outside Las Vegas, NV, alleging violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and California consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are identified as purchasers of “First Family memberships” in the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, which is operated by Front Sight Management Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Gun Week has obtained a copy of the lawsuit, which alleges that Piazza illegally diverted money obtained from the plaintiffs and members of this so-called First Family group, as well as money he obtained through a bank loan using Front Sight property as security “For his personal use and self aggrandizement.”

Surprisingly, though, the attorney representing the plaintiffs seemed conciliatory in discussing the case, contending that his clients took the action to assure that their concerns are addressed. Attorney C. Keith Greer told Gun Week that “the parties are trying to work through this amicably.”

He compared the case to “a family squabble.” A careful reading of the complaint might suggest otherwise, and that this so-called squabble has reached epic proportions. Beyond the alleged violation of the RICO Act and consumer protection laws, the lawsuit document contains terms such as “Ponzi scheme” and allegations of wire fraud and mail fraud, “laundering monetary instruments,” “interstate transportation of stolen property” and the further allegation that “Piazza defrauded the public out of over $5,000,000. . . .”

What’s more, there is a website (www.frontsightlitigation.com) that details the plaintiffs’ case and includes a copy of the complaint, which was filed Nov. 7.

Yet with all this apparent dirty laundry, Greer maintained that “If everybody is reasonable and works together in good faith,” the dispute can be settled without the necessity of a court trial.

Piazza declined to discuss the lawsuit with Gun Week, promising instead that his attorney would provide a written response. Gun Week had not received that response as we went to press. He was apologetic in a brief telephone conversation, insisting, “I don’t mean to be evasive (and) I don’t mean to blow you off.”

‘First Rate Facility’
Front Sight has been advertised for years as a “community” for shooters, with plans to build a residential development around the shooting range and education facility. When Piazza first started Front Sight with an advertising blitz in the mid-1990s, it was claimed that this shooting school was the best facility of its type in the country. One ex-student contacted by Gun Week said that the shooting ranges are first class, with opportunities to shoot handguns, rifles and even submachineguns.

However, echoing a complaint contained in the lawsuit, the former student said that part of the “curriculum” at Front Sight’s Nevada facility amounted to a “sales pitch” similar to that offered by time share camping and condominium groups. The thrust of these presentations, said the source, who is not part of the lawsuit, was to sell memberships to the range, with a “First Family” membership ranging up to several thousand dollars. According to the lawsuit, a “Platinum First Family” membership cost one of the plaintiffs $175,000.

The lawsuit alleges that “Initially prices were set at $8,900 for a ‘Copper Membership,’ $23,000 for a ‘Bronze Membership,’ $90,000 for a ‘Silver Membership,’ and $300,000 for a ‘Platinum Membership.’ ”

The lawsuit further alleges that each of these memberships “gave purchasers access to certain courses free of charge, with the Silver and Platinum Memberships giving the purchasers access to virtually all offered courses in perpetuity.”

In addition, those who purchased Platinum Membership plans allegedly also were given a one-acre home site at the Front Sight “resort,” which the plaintiffs allege was a violation of federal and state laws regarding the sale of real estate.

‘Ponzi Scheme’
The lawsuit contends that Piazza sold memberships with promises to develop a resort community around the range complex, knowing that he was not raising enough money to ever “proceed with the plan as presented.” Over time, the lawsuit alleges, Piazza offered several different membership plans in order to raise money to cover expenses.

“As with any ‘Ponzi scheme,’ ” the lawsuit alleges, “eventually the pyramid got too big, and Piazza was unable to bring in enough new money from memberships to maintain the scheme without dropping membership prices precipitously. This exposed the problems being experienced by Front Sight, and the misrepresentations that had been made over the years.”

The lawsuit details various alleged “misrepresentations” made to Front Sight members, including assertions that Piazza, because he was “unable to raise sufficient capital through even reduced rate memberships,” had to take out a loan using the Front Sight property as security.

“In fact,” the lawsuit alleges, “at the same time defendant Piazza was disseminating glowing reports across the country about Front Sight’s success, Front Sight was unable to timely pay its employees wages or the company’s other financial obligations.”

Despite these assertions, Greer said his clients still believe in the Front Sight philosophy, and remain “strong Second Amendment supporters.”

“They believe in the Front Sight concept,” he insisted, “and don’t want to do anything to harm Front Sight.”

Then why the lawsuit?

“The court system is just a formal structure for people with disputes to resolve their disputes,” Greer explained. “It motivates the parties involved to work (their problems) out . . . and whatever disputes remain go to a jury.”

However, Greer seemed hopeful that the dispute will not go that far.

“I think it’s something that should happen and I think it’s something that could happen,” he said.