Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts Act
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill amends the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to expand and clarify legal immunity for firearms manufacturers, retailers, and distributors against lawsuits from victims of gun violence or their families. The bill makes it harder for shooting victims to sue gun makers and sellers by broadening the categories of lawsuits that are barred.
Who benefits
Firearms manufacturers (including Smith & Wesson, Sturm Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Colt, and smaller makers), firearms distributors, gun retailers and dealers, ammunition manufacturers, and firearms trade associations (National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Rifle Association).
Who pays / loses
Families and survivors of gun violence victims who seek compensation through civil lawsuits, victims of mass shootings and their estates, cities and municipalities that have pursued litigation against gun makers for costs associated with gun violence, and plaintiffs' attorneys who specialize in product liability cases.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The firearms and ammunition industry has a direct financial interest in this bill's passage, as expanded immunity reduces litigation costs and legal exposure. The National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and state-level firearm advocacy groups actively lobby for PLCAA protections. Gun manufacturers including major public companies and private firms would benefit directly from reduced liability risk and settlement exposure.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Gun violence victims and their families (approximately 45,000+ gun deaths annually in the U.S.); survivors of mass shooting events; parents of victims of school shootings; urban and suburban communities with high rates of firearm injury; civil rights lawyers specializing in product liability; cities pursuing public nuisance litigation against gun makers (Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C., and numerous others have attempted such suits).
Political Subtext
Proponents argue the bill protects constitutional Second Amendment rights, prevents frivolous lawsuits that burden legitimate gun manufacturers, and ensures the firearms industry is not treated differently than other legal industries under tort law. Critics argue the bill shields gun makers from accountability for negligent design, marketing, and distribution practices that enable gun violence; that it uniquely insulates one industry from civil liability in ways other manufacturers do not enjoy; and that it blocks a legitimate legal avenue for victims to recover damages. Non-partisan policy research shows that PLCAA has dramatically reduced litigation against gun makers since 2005, and that comparative analysis of product liability law shows firearms manufacturers receive broader immunity than manufacturers of other consumer products (cars, pharmaceuticals, power tools) in comparable injury contexts.
Real-World Stakes
If this passes, victims of gun violence will have almost no ability to sue firearm manufacturers or retailers for negligent design, inadequate safety warnings, irresponsible marketing to at-risk groups, or negligent sales practices such as straw purchases or sales to prohibited persons. The current PLCAA (enacted 2005) already provides broad immunity; this bill expands it further. When PLCAA passed, litigation against gun makers dropped from dozens of active cases to near zero. Cities like New York, Chicago, and others have unsuccessfully challenged PLCAA in federal court; expanded immunity language in this bill would make such challenges even more difficult. Gun violence remains the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the U.S., according to CDC data (2020–2023). No civil remedy avenue would remain available to families seeking compensation for injuries or deaths caused by negligent firearms distribution or defective design—a remedy available to consumers injured by other products.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Immunity for negligent distribution and straw purchase facilitation
Expands immunity to shield manufacturers and dealers from liability even when they knowingly or recklessly distribute firearms through channels reasonably likely to result in illegal transfers, as long as they don't have direct knowledge of a specific criminal act.
AffectsGun violence victims and their families who cannot sue dealers/manufacturers for negligent sales practices that enable straw purchases or trafficking to prohibited persons.
Preemption of state and local consumer protection laws
Prevents states and municipalities from enforcing their own consumer protection, product liability, or public nuisance statutes against firearm sellers, overriding existing state law causes of action.
AffectsState attorneys general and local governments lose enforcement authority; residents in states with strong consumer protection frameworks lose those protections specifically for firearms.
Immunity from failure-to-warn claims
Bars lawsuits claiming manufacturers failed to warn about foreseeable risks, even if warnings were technologically feasible and industry-standard for comparable products.
AffectsVictims harmed by design defects or safety features that competitors provide (like loaded chamber indicators or magazine disconnect safeties) cannot seek damages for inadequate warnings.
Carve-out limitation on criminal/intentional act exception
Narrows the exception to immunity for direct criminal conduct by the manufacturer/seller themselves, excluding liability for facilitating or negligently enabling third-party criminal use.
AffectsDealers engaged in systematic negligence enabling straw purchases or trafficking gain broad immunity unless prosecutors prove direct participation in the specific crime.
Elimination of discovery in dismissed cases
Requires dismissal of cases before plaintiffs can conduct discovery, preventing public disclosure of internal industry communications about risk awareness, marketing practices, or distribution decisions.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (23)
RSen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]RSen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]RSen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]RSen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]RSen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]RSen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]RSen. Lankford, James [R-OK]RSen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]RSen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]RSen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]RSen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]RSen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]RSen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]RSen. Graham, Darline [R-SC]RSen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]RSen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]RSen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]RSen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]RSen. Justice, James C. [R-WV]RSen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]+3 more
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.