A U.S. district judge has dismissed a discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim organisation against a Florida gun shop owner who declared his store "Muslim-free zone" last July.

Judge Beth Bloom of the Florida District Court ruled against the local chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which brought the suit against Florida Gun Supply owned by Andy Hallinan.

"This dismissal was yet another AFLC victory against CAIR and its jihadi lawfare against patriotic Americans across the country. This victory follows on the heels of a recent victory against CAIR in a Michigan federal court where CAIR's subpoenas were quashed and CAIR's nefarious client sanctioned for abusive practices," said American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) senior counsel David Yerushalmi.

CAIR alleged that the gun store's "Muslim Free Zone" policy was tantamount to religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

Hallinan enforced the policy in his store after the Chattanooga, Tennessee terrorist attack.

Yerushalmi charged that "CAIR was born from a jihadi terrorist conspiracy, and it has done little to distance itself from those bona fides."

In the Chattanooga case, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, was accused of killing four U.S. Marines and a U.S. Navy petty officer during a shooting rampage, WND reported.

Hallinan explained that Florida Gun Supply will not serve "[a]nyone who is either directly or indirectly associated with terrorism in any way."

AFLC co-founder Robert Muise said, "As our motion and now the court's ruling make clear, CAIR's lawsuit was patently frivolous if not outright dangerous. No firearms dealer or gun range owner for that matter should be required to sell weapons to or train anyone that the dealer or owner has reason to believe is a terrorist threat. We all have a civic responsibility to prevent the next terrorist attack. CAIR's lawsuit was an effort to prevent business owners from doing so."

The court said CAIR "insufficiently alleged imminent harm. The complaint contains only bald ... allegations devoid of factual enhancement."

"There are simply no facts grounding the assertion that [CAIR] and/or one of its constituents will be harmed," the court said.