This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section is about changes proposed to a bill or resolution. It mentions members such as John Cornyn.
Issued
June 24, 2026
senate side of the record
People
1
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
0
No linked legislation in this section
Committees
0
No linked committees in this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextSA 6467. Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Daines, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Lummis, and Mr. Ricketts) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. . STOPPING HARMFUL AND OUTRAGEOUS TORTS ACT.
(a) Short Title.—
This section may be cited as the “Stopping Harmful and
Outrageous Torts Act”.
(b) Clarifying the Broad Scope of Immunity Against
Qualified Civil Actions.—Section 3 of the Protection of
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. 7902) is amended by
striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
“(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.—A qualified civil
liability action, including any claims asserted therein, that
is pending on the date of enactment of the Stopping Harmful
and Outrageous Torts Act, shall be immediately dismissed by
the court in which the action was brought or is currently
pending.”.
(c) Updating Definitions to Halt the Spread of Frivolous
Lawsuits.—Section 4 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act (15 U.S.C. 7903) is amended—
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
“(1) Engaged in the business.—The term `engaged in the
business' means devoting time, attention, and labor to the
sale, manufacture, or importation of a qualified product as a
regular course of trade or business.”;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking “commerce” and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting
“commerce, including any owner and employee of such
person”;
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (9) as
paragraphs (5) through (10), respectively;
(4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) Proximate cause.—The term `proximate cause' means
that the plaintiff was directly injured by the allegedly
unlawful conduct of the defendant.”;
(5) by striking paragraph (5), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following:
“(5) Qualified product.—The term `qualified product'
means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)
of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code),
including any antique firearm (as defined in section
921(a)(16) of such title), ammunition (as defined in section
921(a)(17)(A) of such title), or a component part of, or an
accessory intended for use with, a firearm or ammunition,
including 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, that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.”;
(6) by striking paragraph (6), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following:
“(6) Qualified civil liability action.—
“(A) In general.—The term `qualified civil liability
action' means a civil action, proceeding, or administrative
proceeding, or any claim asserted therein, brought by any
person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified
product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive
damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement,
restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting
from, on the basis of, arising out of, or in relation to the
criminal or unlawful misuse, alteration, or modification of a
qualified product by the person or a third party, under any
theory of liability, including statutory claims or claims
arising from tort or contract, but shall not include—
“(i) a claim brought against a transferor convicted under
section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a
comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly
harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so
convicted;
“(ii) a claim brought against a seller for negligent
entrustment or negligence per se;
“(iii) a claim—
“(I) in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified
product knowingly violated chapter 44 of title 18, United
States Code, chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), or the
Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.),
or an equivalent State statute, that is intended to and
exclusively imposes specific and concrete obligations on
manufacturers and sellers regarding the manner in which
qualified products are manufactured, distributed, or
transferred to unlicensed persons;
“(II) in which the violation was a proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought; and
“(III) that is not premised on nuisance or negligence,
whether based in statute or common law;
“(iv) a claim for breach of contract or warranty in
connection with the purchase of the product;
“(v) a claim for death, physical injuries or property
damage resulting directly from a defect in design or
manufacture of the product, when being lawfully used as
intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that
where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional
act which meets the elements of a criminal offense, then such
act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any
resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
“(vi) a claim or proceeding commenced by the Attorney
General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18,
United States Code, or chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
“(B) Negligent entrustment.—As used in subparagraph
(A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment'—
“(i) means the supplying of a qualified product by a
seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or
reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is
supplied is themself likely to, and does, use the product in
a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to
the person or others; and
“(ii) does not include instances in which the harm was
caused by a person who was not entrusted with the qualified
product directly by the seller.
“(C) Rule of construction.—The exceptions enumerated
under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) shall be
construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of
this Act shall be construed to create a public or private
cause of action, claim, or remedy.
“(D) Minor child exception.—Nothing in this 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 requirements under
clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
“(E) Foreign state and governments.—
“(i) Definition.—The term `foreign state or government'
includes any entity, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign
state or government.
“(ii) Prohibition.—No foreign state or government may
bring a civil action, proceeding, or administrative
proceeding, or any claim asserted therein against a
manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade
association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or
declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or
penalties, or other relief, resulting from, on the basis of,
arising out of, or in relation to the criminal or unlawful
misuse, alteration, or modification of a qualified product by
the person or a third party, under any theory of liability,
including statutory claims or claims arising from tort or
contract, in any Federal or State court. The exceptions to
immunity provided under clauses (i) through (v) of
subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any claim brought by a
foreign state or government and may not be asserted by any
foreign state or government in any Federal or State court.”.
(7) by striking paragraph (7), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following:
“(7) Seller.—The term `seller', with respect to a
qualified product—
“(A) means—
“(i) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title
18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as
such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is
licensed to engage in business as such an importer under
chapter 44 of that title;
“(ii) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title
18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as
such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is
licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter
44 of that title;
“(iii) a person engaged in the business of selling
ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of title 18,
United States Code); or
“(iv) a person engaged in the business of selling any
other qualified product in interstate or foreign commerce at
the wholesale or retail level, including import and export;
“(B) includes any owner or employee of the seller; and
“(C) does not include any manufacturer.”.
(d) Procedure for Removal and Dismissal.—The Protection of
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 3 (15 U.S.C. 7902) the
following:
“SEC. 3A. PROCEDURE.
“(a) Removal and Dismissal.—
“(1) In general.—In any action before a State court in
which a defendant that is a manufacturer, seller, or trade
association asserts that the action is a qualified civil
liability action, the manufacturer, seller, or trade
association may remove the action to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.
“(2) Jurisdiction.—
“(A) In general.—The district court shall have
jurisdiction over an action described in paragraph (1) if the
defendant seeking removal makes a colorable assertion that at
least 1 of the claims is a qualified civil liability action.
“(B) Supplemental jurisdiction.—The district court may
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in
the action that arise out of the same common nucleus of
operative facts.
“(3) Motion to dismiss.—Upon determination by the
district court that removal is proper, the defendant shall
have 30 days to file a motion to dismiss.
“(4) Discretion.—The district court has the discretion to
retain jurisdiction to resolve any remaining claims in the
case even upon the dismissal of claims barred by the immunity
granted by this Act if doing so comports with judicial
economy, convenience, fairness to the parties, and comity.
“(5) Review.—An order remanding a case to the State court
from which it was removed pursuant to this section shall be
immediately reviewable on appeal.
“(b) Pleading.—
“(1) In general.—A claim brought against a manufacturer
or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association,
premised on any of the exceptions listed in clauses (i)
through (vi) of section 3(6)(A) shall plead with
particularity the factual allegations providing the basis for
the application of the exception, including those facts
necessary to establish scienter and proximate cause.
“(2) Exceptions.—A claim brought against a manufacturer
or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association,
premised on an exception to the immunity granted in this Act
shall allege particularized facts showing that the
manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or trade
association, was the proximate cause of the damages alleged.
The court shall determine whether the particularized facts
alleged by the plaintiff suffice to establish proximate cause
as a matter of law.
“(c) Interlocutory Appeals as of Right.—A defendant shall
have the right to take an immediate interlocutory appeal of
an order, denying a motion to dismiss based on any provision
of this Act.
“(d) Attorney's Fees for Prevailing Defendants.—A
defendant who prevails in asserting the immunity granted in
this Act shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and
court costs.”.
(e) Preemption.—The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms
Act (15 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.), as amended by subsection (d) of
this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“SEC. 3B. PREEMPTION.
“The provisions of this Act expressly preempt 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 insofar as the State or local law
(including regulations) allows for civil actions, civil
proceedings, and administrative proceedings for damages,
punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief,
abatement, restitution, fines, penalties, or other relief
resulting from the criminal misuse, alteration, or
modification of a qualified product under any theory of
liability, including any statutory claim arising from tort or
contract.”.