Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to provide sweeping immunity to the firearms industry from civil lawsuits, making it significantly harder to hold manufacturers and sellers accountable for harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands liability protections for firearm manufacturers and sellers under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It redefines key terms like "qualified product" and "qualified civil liability action" to broaden immunity, mandates immediate dismissal of pending lawsuits, and establishes new procedures for removal to federal court and interlocutory appeals for defendants. It also explicitly preempts state and local laws that impose liability on the firearms industry.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects a lawful industry from frivolous lawsuits that seek to hold manufacturers responsible for the criminal acts of third parties, which they contend is an abuse of the legal system. They assert it upholds Second Amendment rights by preventing litigation that could bankrupt legitimate businesses and restrict access to firearms. They also claim it clarifies existing law to prevent judicial overreach and ensure consistent application of liability standards nationwide.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend the bill further shields the firearms industry from accountability, making it nearly impossible for victims of gun violence to seek justice or incentivize safer manufacturing and sales practices. They argue it undermines states' rights to regulate commerce and protect their citizens, and that it could exacerbate gun violence by removing a crucial avenue for legal recourse against negligent industry practices.
The bill is relatively short but contains dense legal language and significant amendments to existing law, requiring careful reading to grasp its full implications.
Section 2, amending 15 U.S.C. 7902(b)
Mandates Immediate Dismissal of Pending Lawsuits
This section replaces existing language to explicitly state that any "qualified civil liability action" (as redefined later in the bill) that is currently pending on the date the Act is enacted "shall be immediately dismissed" by the court. This provision retroactively applies the expanded immunity to existing cases, requiring courts to terminate them without further proceedings.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this prevents ongoing harassment of lawful businesses through litigation that they believe is without merit and aims to circumvent existing protections. It ensures the new, clarified immunity applies universally and immediately.
Critics contend
Opponents contend this provision is an unprecedented and unconstitutional interference with the judicial process, retroactively stripping victims of their right to seek justice and denying them their day in court. They argue it is a blatant attempt to protect the industry from accountability for past actions.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to provide immediate and comprehensive legal protection to the firearms industry against the principle of judicial independence and the rights of plaintiffs to pursue existing legal claims.
Section 3(1), amending 15 U.S.C. 7903(1)
Clarifies "Engaged in the Business" Definition
This amendment defines "engaged in the business" as "devoting time, attention, and labor to the sale, manufacture, or importation of a qualified product as a regular course of trade or business." This clarifies that casual or infrequent activities would not qualify, focusing the definition on professional commercial operations to ensure PLCAA's protections apply to legitimate businesses.
Section 3(4), inserting new 15 U.S.C. 7903(4)
Defines "Proximate Cause"
This new definition states "proximate cause" means "that the plaintiff was directly injured by the allegedly unlawful conduct of the defendant." This sets a high bar for establishing causation, requiring a direct link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury, rather than indirect or remote connections, making it harder to prove liability.
Section 3(5), amending 15 U.S.C. 7903(5)
Expands Definition of "Qualified Product"
The definition of "qualified product" is expanded to include not only firearms and ammunition but also "any antique firearm," "a component part of, or an accessory intended for use with, a firearm or ammunition," explicitly listing "ammunition magazines or clips, optical devices, or other products intended to be included in, attached to, or used while attached to, or in conjunction with, a firearm or ammunition." This significantly broadens the scope of products covered by PLCAA's immunity.
Section 3(6), amending 15 U.S.C. 7903(6)
Redefines and Restricts "Qualified Civil Liability Action" Exceptions
This major amendment broadens the definition of a "qualified civil liability action" to cover virtually any claim against the industry related to criminal or unlawful misuse of a product. It then significantly narrows the exceptions to this immunity, particularly for negligent entrustment, statutory violations (requiring proximate cause and excluding nuisance/negligence claims), and product defects (by making a criminal act the "sole proximate cause"). It also prohibits foreign states from suing and adds a minor child exception.
Section 4, inserting new 15 U.S.C. 3A
Establishes Federal Removal and Dismissal Procedures
This section creates new federal procedures allowing a defendant (firearms industry member) to remove a state court action to federal court if it's a "qualified civil liability action." The federal court gains jurisdiction and the defendant has 30 days to file a motion to dismiss. Crucially, orders remanding a case to state court are "immediately reviewable on appeal," and defendants can take immediate interlocutory appeals of orders denying dismissal. Plaintiffs must plead exceptions with "particularity," and prevailing defendants are entitled to attorney's fees and court costs.
Section 5, inserting new 15 U.S.C. 3B
Establishes Broad Federal Preemption of State and Local Laws
This section explicitly preempts any state and local laws (including regulations) that "specifically impose liability on qualified product manufacturers, sellers, and trade associations, or that attempt to do so in a generally applicable manner" if those laws allow for civil actions or other relief "resulting from the criminal misuse, alteration, or modification of a qualified product under any theory of liability." This aims to nullify any state or local efforts to create liability standards for the firearms industry that conflict with PLCAA.
Amends the exception for product defects by adding that if a product's discharge is caused by a criminal act, that act "shall be considered the sole proximate cause" of any resulting death, personal injuries, or property damage.
Section 3(6)(A)(v)
Why it matters:This is a highly consequential legal change embedded within an exception. While technically part of the exception, its effect is to severely limit the defect exception, which could be seen as an evasive way to restrict liability without explicitly removing the exception entirely.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents manufacturers from being held liable for the criminal misuse of their products, asserting that the criminal's volitional act is the true cause of harm, regardless of any alleged defect. They believe it reinforces the principle that criminals, not lawful businesses, are responsible for their actions.
Case against: Opponents contend this clause effectively nullifies the product defect exception whenever a firearm is used in a crime, even if a manufacturing flaw (e.g., accidental discharge) contributed to the injury. They argue it grants unique immunity to the firearms industry that other product manufacturers do not enjoy, even when their products are defective.
Estimated impact: This provision would likely eliminate a significant number of product liability claims against firearms manufacturers where a criminal act is involved, regardless of any alleged defect.
Allows for immediate appeal of an order remanding a case to state court and an immediate interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss based on any provision of this Act.
Section 4, new 15 U.S.C. 3A(a)(5) and 3A(c)
Why it matters:These provisions significantly alter the litigation timeline and cost, heavily favoring defendants. By allowing immediate appeals of remand orders and denials of dismissal, it creates multiple opportunities for defendants to delay proceedings and increase costs for plaintiffs, potentially forcing settlements or abandonment of cases. This is a common legislative tactic to create procedural advantages.
Case for: Proponents argue these appeals are necessary to ensure that the immunity granted by the Act is properly applied and not circumvented by lower courts. They contend that without immediate review, defendants could be forced to endure lengthy and costly litigation in state courts, defeating the purpose of the immunity.
Case against: Opponents argue these provisions create significant procedural hurdles and delays for plaintiffs, making it more difficult and expensive to pursue legitimate claims. They contend it allows defendants to weaponize the appeals process to exhaust plaintiffs financially, even before the merits of a case are heard.
Estimated impact: This would likely increase the duration and cost of litigation for plaintiffs, while providing defendants with powerful tools to challenge adverse rulings early in the process.