Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly expands liability protections for the firearms industry by clarifying and broadening existing immunity under PLCAA, making it harder to sue manufacturers and sellers for harm caused by the criminal misuse of their products.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to significantly broaden immunity for firearm manufacturers and sellers from civil liability. It mandates the immediate dismissal of pending lawsuits, expands the definition of protected products and clarifies 'proximate cause,' and narrows the exceptions under which the firearms industry can be sued. Additionally, it establishes procedures for removing qualified civil liability actions to federal court, requires particularized pleading for exceptions, allows for interlocutory appeals, and grants attorney's fees to prevailing defendants. The bill also explicitly preempts state and local laws that impose liability on the firearms industry for criminal misuse of products and prohibits foreign states from bringing such actions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect a lawful industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits that seek to hold manufacturers and sellers responsible for the criminal acts of third parties. They contend that this legislation clarifies congressional intent behind PLCAA, prevents creative legal theories from circumventing established protections, and ultimately safeguards Second Amendment rights by ensuring the continued viability of the firearms industry.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill further shields the firearms industry from accountability, making it exceedingly difficult for victims of gun violence to seek justice and obtain redress for their injuries. They argue that by removing incentives for manufacturers and sellers to adopt safer practices and by insulating negligent actors from legal consequences, the bill could lead to an increase in gun violence and undermine public safety efforts.
The bill is relatively short and its core changes are identifiable, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Mandated Dismissal of Existing Lawsuits
This provision amends the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to require the immediate dismissal of any 'qualified civil liability action' (as newly defined by this bill) that is currently pending in any court on the date this Act is enacted. This means that lawsuits already filed against firearm manufacturers or sellers that fall under the expanded definition of immune actions would be terminated by judicial order.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is necessary to prevent ongoing harassment of the firearms industry with lawsuits that would be barred under the clarified federal law. They contend it ensures the consistent application of congressional intent and prevents plaintiffs from circumventing immunity through protracted litigation.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision retroactively strips victims of gun violence of their legal recourse, denying them their day in court and undermining fundamental principles of justice. They argue it sets a dangerous precedent by allowing legislation to terminate existing legal actions.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between providing immediate legal certainty and protection for the firearms industry and preserving plaintiffs' access to justice for ongoing cases, potentially at the expense of established legal processes.
Section 3(4), (5)
Expanded Definition of 'Qualified Product' and 'Proximate Cause'
This section expands the definition of a 'qualified product' to explicitly include antique firearms, ammunition, and all component parts or accessories, such as magazines and optical devices, ensuring comprehensive immunity coverage for the entire ecosystem of firearm-related items. It also defines 'proximate cause' narrowly, requiring that the plaintiff was *directly* injured by the allegedly unlawful conduct of the defendant, thereby raising the bar for establishing a causal link in liability claims.
Section 3(6)
Revised Definition of 'Qualified Civil Liability Action' and Exceptions
This provision significantly broadens the core definition of a 'qualified civil liability action' to include any civil action, proceeding, or claim arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse, alteration, or modification of a qualified product by any person or third party, under any theory of liability. It also refines the exceptions to immunity, notably defining 'negligent entrustment' narrowly to apply only when a seller directly supplies a product knowing the recipient is likely to misuse it, explicitly excluding harm caused by subsequent transfers. A new rule of construction clarifies that the enumerated exceptions do not create new causes of action.
Section 4 (new Section 3A)
Federal Court Removal and Dismissal Procedures
This section establishes new legal procedures allowing firearm manufacturers, sellers, or trade associations to remove any 'qualified civil liability action' from state court to a federal district court if they make a 'colorable assertion' that the action is qualified. Federal courts are granted jurisdiction over such removed cases and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims. Defendants are given 30 days post-removal to file a motion to dismiss. The bill also grants the right to an immediate interlocutory appeal if a motion to dismiss based on immunity is denied, and mandates that prevailing defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.
Section 5 (new Section 3B)
Broad Federal Preemption of State and Local Liability Laws
This section explicitly states that the provisions of this Act preempt any state and local laws (including regulations) that specifically impose liability on qualified product manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations. This preemption applies broadly to any state or local law that allows for civil actions, proceedings, or administrative actions for damages or other relief resulting from the criminal misuse, alteration, or modification of a qualified product under any theory of liability, including statutory claims arising from tort or contract.
This clause states that nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the right of a person under 17 years of age to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law in a civil action that meets one of the specific exceptions to immunity (clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A)).
Section 3(6)(D)
Why it matters:While it could be standard legislative drafting to place exceptions within the definitional section, its placement also makes it less prominent than the broader grants of immunity, potentially minimizing public attention to this specific protection.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this provision ensures that the most vulnerable victims, minors, retain some avenues for legal recourse where specific, narrowly defined exceptions to immunity apply, demonstrating a degree of compassion within the broader immunity framework.
Case against: Critics might contend that while appearing to offer a protection, this exception is largely symbolic. It still requires minors to meet the strict criteria of the already narrowed exceptions, which are designed to be difficult to satisfy, thus offering limited practical impact on overall accountability.
Estimated impact: The impact is limited, as it only applies to persons under 17 and still requires meeting the strict criteria of the existing, narrow exceptions to immunity. It does not create new rights but preserves existing ones under specific conditions for a particular age group.
This 'Rule of Construction' states that the enumerated exceptions to immunity (clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A)) shall be interpreted so as not to conflict with each other, and crucially, that no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action, claim, or remedy.
Section 3(6)(C)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative drafting technique to guide judicial interpretation and prevent unintended consequences. However, in the context of a bill expanding immunity, it also serves to explicitly limit any potential judicial creativity in interpreting exceptions, ensuring they are not expanded beyond their narrow statutory language.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this rule is essential for legal clarity and predictability. It ensures that courts do not inadvertently create new avenues for lawsuits against the firearms industry by broadly interpreting the exceptions, thereby upholding the primary intent of the PLCAA to grant immunity.
Case against: Critics might contend that this provision further restricts judicial discretion and the evolution of common law, making it harder for courts to adapt to new legal theories or societal needs regarding corporate accountability. They would argue it locks in a narrow interpretation that favors the industry at the expense of justice.
Estimated impact: This provision has a significant legal impact by explicitly limiting judicial interpretation of the exceptions and preventing the creation of new causes of action. It reinforces the bill's overall goal of narrowing avenues for litigation against the firearms industry.