[House Report 117-436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress     }                                  {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                  {      117-436

======================================================================

 
    EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE ACT OF 2022

                                _______
                                

 July 26, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Nadler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2814]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2814) to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
Arms Act, and provide for the discoverability and admissibility 
of gun trace information in civil proceedings, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................    13
Committee Consideration..........................................    14
Committee Votes..................................................    14
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    18
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................    18
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost 
  Estimate.......................................................    18
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    18
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    18
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    18
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    18
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    19
Minority Views...................................................    23

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and insert 
the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Access to Justice for Victims of 
Gun Violence Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL 
                    COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT.

  Sections 2 through 4 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 
(15 U.S.C. 7901-7903) are repealed.

SEC. 3. DISCOVERABILITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF GUN TRACE INFORMATION IN 
                    CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.

  The contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the 
National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives shall not be immune from legal process, shall be subject to 
subpoena or other discovery, shall be admissible as evidence, and may 
be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, and testimony or other 
evidence may be permitted based on the data, on the same basis as other 
information, in a civil action in any State (including the District of 
Columbia) or Federal court or in an administrative proceeding.

                          Purpose and Summary

    Introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on April 22, 2021, 
H.R. 2814, the ``Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun 
Violence Act of 2022,'' would remove limitations on the civil 
liability of gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers and 
permit the disclosure of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) gun trace data in civil and 
administrative proceedings.

                Background and Need for the Legislation


            I. THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

    A basic feature of American law is that victims of harm may 
seek redress in court against wrongdoers. One of the bedrocks 
of American jurisprudence, tort law, was established to provide 
relief to injured parties for harms caused by others and to 
deter others from committing harmful acts. In every state, a 
business or an individual can be sued for negligence when their 
conduct lacks reasonable care that foreseeably results in harm 
to others. In general, consumers may bring civil legal claims 
against manufacturers when a product is defective, does not 
operate in a manner for which it is designed, or is negligently 
distributed.
    Beginning in the 1980s, firearm victims began filing 
lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers 
presenting a variety of legal theories intended to show that 
the firearms industry's negligent practices led to their 
harm.\1\ Following the success of litigation against the 
tobacco industry in the 1990's, more than 30 municipalities 
filed suit against federally licensed firearm manufacturers, 
distributors, and dealers.\2\ These lawsuits advanced three 
arguments: (1) the firearms sold were defective (products 
liability); (2) the gun industry had engaged in improper 
marketing techniques and distribution practices;\3\ and (3) the 
proliferation of firearms in certain urban areas constituted a 
public nuisance.\4\ In addition to seeking damages for recovery 
of Medicaid dollars and the public health costs of gun 
violence, municipalities pursued recovery of government funds 
spent on crime prevention and responding to gun-related 
crime.\5\ Cities also requested injunctive relief to change or 
put an end to dangerous firearms design and marketing 
practices.\6\ Some of the manufacturers and dealers sued were 
located outside the state where the harm occurred. The 
plaintiffs based their claims against businesses on data and 
studies that traced the interstate movement of firearms.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\T.D. Lytton, Introduction: An Overview of Lawsuits Against the 
Gun Industry, Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun 
Control and Mass Torts 1 (2005), https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/
0472115103-intro.pdf.
    \2\Id. at 11.
    \3\Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), 
vacated sub nom., Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 264 F.3d 21 (2d 
Cir. 2001).
    \4\In Search of a Smoking Gun: A Comparison of Public Entity 
Tobacco and Gun Litigation, 66 BROOK. L. REV. 549 (2000).
    \5\See, e.g., City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 126 F. 
Supp. 2d 882, 894 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (noting the various public 
expenditures that the city sought reimbursement for); City of 
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136, 1140, 1150 (Ohio 
2002) (stating that the city was seeking reimbursement of police, 
emergency, health, and corrections costs, as well as changes to 
manufacturing, marketing, and distribution practices).
    \6\See, e.g., City of Cincinnati, 768 N.E.2d at 1150 (stating that 
the city sought changes to manufacturing, marketing, and distribution 
practices); City of Boston v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No. 1999-02590, 
2000 Mass. Super. LEXIS 352, at *58 (July 13, 2000) (summarizing the 
city's request to enjoin the manufacture, distribution, or sale of 
firearms without safety devices and warnings).
    \7\See, e.g., Hamilton v. Beretta, 96 N.Y.2d 222, 750 N.E.2d 1055 
(2001) (plaintiffs asserted that defendant gun makers oversupplied guns 
to dealers in states with weak gun control laws (primarily in the 
Southeast); Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, supra, at 830 (knowing that many of 
those excess guns would be smuggled into states with stricter gun laws 
such as New York for use in crime. Plaintiff's expert analyzed ATF 
trace database and concluded that between 1993 and 1996, approximately 
43% of New York crime guns came from the southeast and 85-90% of all of 
those crime guns came from out of state.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Courts largely rejected the individual and municipalities' 
civil claims during the pleadings stage, although a handful of 
cases forced firearms manufacturers to settle claims and, in 
some cases, required changes to their practices.\8\ Of those 
lawsuits that were allowed to proceed, several were 
successfully used to secure the adoption of new safety measures 
and other best practices within the gun industry. For 
plaintiffs and gun control advocates, these somewhat minimal 
accomplishments provided a glimmer of hope for greater change 
in the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\T. Jackman, Gunmaker, Store Agree to Payout in Sniper Case, 
Wash. Post, Sept. 10, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his second term, President Bill Clinton vowed to pursue 
a class action civil litigation against Smith & Wesson, a large 
firearms manufacturer, under the theory that it negligently 
manufactured and distributed firearms, leaving the federal 
government to incur the cost of firearm violence. This approach 
led to early dividends. In 2000, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) settled numerous firearms negligence 
claims on behalf of the federal government, which in turn led 
to a series of substantive changes to marketing and 
distribution practices.\9\ Smith & Wesson ultimately agreed to 
adopt additional safety practices, including selling safety 
devices with each handgun, and establishing a code of conduct 
for its authorized dealers and distributors. In 2004, another 
major weapons manufacturer, Bushmaster, and the dealer who sold 
the firearms used by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo 
during a nine-month crime spree were held liable in a $2.5 
million settlement.\10\ The victims' families argued that the 
dealer, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, was responsible because of 
its negligent sales practices and that Bushmaster was 
responsible because it continued to supply firearms to the 
store despite the store's known negligence. In addition to 
monetary damages paid by both parties, Bushmaster also agreed 
to change its distribution practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\J. Dao, Under Legal Siege, Gun Maker Agrees to Accept Curbs, 
N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 18, 2000, https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/under-
legal-siege-gun-maker-agrees-to-accept-
curbs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.
    \10\After the guns were traced back to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, 
it was discovered that the retailer failed to keep required records of 
the gun sales and had lost more than 238 guns over the previous three 
years--guns that were supposed to be in their inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enacted with bipartisan support in 2005 after intense 
lobbying from the gun industry,\11\ the Protection of Lawful 
Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, was introduced in response to 
the litigation brought by the municipalities and the victims of 
shooting incidents and the appearance of shifting attitudes 
towards guns in America. The legislation was meant to prevent 
civil lawsuits against segments of the gun industry, including 
manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of 
firearms, ammunition, or firearms parts, when the product 
worked as intended and was used unlawfully. The scope of the 
civil liability protections applied retroactively upon 
enactment, leading to the dismissal of pending litigation 
against the gun industry at the time of the Act's passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\NRA-ILA Press Release, ``President Bush Signs `Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'--Landmark NRA Victory Now Law,'' press 
release, October 26, 2005, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20051026/
president-bush-signs-protection-of-br.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The PLCAA broadly immunizes the industry from civil 
liability in federal and state court for criminal or unlawful 
misuse of a qualified product.\12\ While perhaps an unintended 
consequence, the law's broad language presents a serious 
obstacle to victims in cases where a gun dealer's negligent 
business practices have put guns in the hands of gun 
traffickers and other criminals, while its broad definitions 
mean that the immunity from civil liability extends to a wide 
range of firearms, ammunition, and their component parts. 
Beyond the basic injustice of depriving victims harmed by the 
gun industry access to the courts--access that is available to 
victims of negligent acts by other industries--civil litigation 
is also necessary to incentivize industry actors to act 
responsibly; take steps to prevent negligent or criminal use of 
their products; and improve product safety. Seventeen years 
after its passage, the PLCAA, which the National Rifle 
Association (NRA) lauded as ``the most significant piece of 
pro-gun legislation in twenty years,''\13\ has provided 
unprecedented insulation to the gun industry for dangerous 
business practices that no other industry in the United States 
enjoys. Although the immunity does not apply to products that 
are sold as defective and a limited number of other 
circumstances, the law has generally been interpreted to bar 
most claims related to inappropriate practices surrounding the 
sale and manufacture of firearms. The PLCAA has foreclosed 
nearly all attempts to hold the firearms industry civilly 
liable, as most lawsuits brought after enactment have been 
dismissed, notwithstanding the law's exceptions that would 
permit a civil suit to proceed against a federal firearms 
licensee (FFL). In practice, by preventing plaintiffs from 
filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers in cases 
when they have been negligent and there has been criminal or 
unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition, the law has shifted 
the cost industry misconduct to victims, communities and the 
Federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Pub. L. 109-92, 119 
Stat. 2095-2103 (2005).
    \13\NRA-ILA Press Release, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Provisions of the PLCAA

    The PLCAA generally shields licensed importers, 
manufacturers, dealers, and distributors of firearms or 
ammunition, as well as trade associations, from any civil 
action ``resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse'' of a 
firearm or ammunition but lists six exceptions where civil 
suits may be maintained. The main provision of the Act provides 
that ``[a] qualified civil liability action may not be brought 
in any Federal or State court.''\14\ Whether a civil suit is 
barred depends on whether the action brought is a ``qualified 
civil liability action,'' which is defined as: a civil action 
or proceeding or an administrative proceeding 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 the 
criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the 
person or a third party.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\15 U.S.C. Sec. 7902(a).
    \15\Id. at Sec. 7903(5)(A). A ``qualified product'' means a 
firearm, including any antique firearm, or ammunition as defined in 
title 18 of the U.S. Code, or a component part of a firearm or 
ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or 
foreign commerce. Id. at Sec. 7903(4). The term ``unlawful misuse'' is 
defined as ``conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation 
as it relates to the use of a qualified product.'' Id. at Sec. 7903(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although a qualified civil liability action, by its own 
definition, appears to bar administrative proceedings, it is 
unclear whether the Act actually does so because the main 
provision of the PLCAA prohibits civil suits from being brought 
in courts. Notably, administrative proceedings are not brought 
in courts--although appeals of such proceedings may be subject 
to judicial review. If the statute is meant to cover 
administrative proceedings, the effect of it doing so is 
unclear because there is no indication that administrative 
proceedings have been instituted against gun manufacturers or 
dealers other than those undertaken by ATF that do not 
implicate the PLCAA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See ATF, Firearms Compliance Inspections FY 2019 (ATF took 
administrative action against over 4,500 FFLs, but only revoked or 
denied the renewal of 43 licenses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exceptions to the Prohibition on Civil Liability Action

    The PLCAA lists six exceptions to its civil immunity or 
types of lawsuits that do not qualify as a ``qualified civil 
liability action,'' and are, therefore, not barred by the 
statute.\17\ The law permits civil lawsuits against gun 
manufacturers and dealers for knowingly transferring a firearm 
or ammunition to a person with knowledge that they will use it 
to commit a felony; violating state or federal laws governing 
the conduct of the gun industry; negligent entrustment or 
negligence per se; breach of contract or warranty; or in 
limited cases involving harm to individuals caused by design 
defect.\18\ Each of these exceptions is discussed in greater 
detail below. It is important to note that relatively few 
reported decisions have substantively interpreted the PLCAA's 
exceptions; and no direct constitutional challenges to the law 
have been upheld thus far.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Id. at Sec. 7903(5)(A)(i)-(vi).
    \18\15 U.S.C. Sec. 7903(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the first exception, a civil suit is not prohibited 
against a transferor (i.e., a federal firearms licensee) 
convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(h) or a comparable state 
felony law which makes it unlawful for anyone to knowingly 
transfer a firearm or ammunition, knowing that the firearm or 
ammunition will be used to commit a felony or one of several 
enumerated federal felonies, including a crime of terrorism or 
a drug trafficking crime.\19\ For the civil action to proceed 
against the transferor, the transferee (or receiver) of the 
firearm must also have been convicted, but the type of 
conviction necessary is unclear; and the lawsuit must be 
brought by someone directly harmed by the conduct of which the 
transferee is convicted. To date, there have been no recorded 
instances of individuals receiving a favorable court verdict 
under this exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, 
Pub. L. 117-159, on June 25, 2022, section 924(h) included the knowing 
transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person with knowledge that the 
person intended to use the firearm or ammunition to commit a crime of 
violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second exception permits actions brought against a 
seller of a qualified product for negligent entrustment or 
negligence per se. This exception specifically refers to 
actions against a ``seller,'' which is defined in the Act as an 
importer, dealer, or a person engaged in the business of 
selling ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. The 
PLCAA's definition of ``seller'' may exclude some manufacturers 
from being included under this second exception, in which case 
they would continue to be immune from suits for negligent 
entrustment or negligence per se. Under the PLCAA, a seller 
includes a ``dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 
18) . . . who is engaged in the business as such a dealer and 
who is licensed to engage in the business'' under title 18. A 
``dealer,'' under Sec. 921(a)(11), includes a person who is 
``engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or 
retail,''\20\ and thus could include a manufacturer that sells 
its products at wholesale. However, under limited 
circumstances,\21\ federal regulation provides that a firearms 
manufacturer is not required ``to obtain a dealer's license in 
order to engage in the business on the licensed premises as a 
dealer of the same type of firearms authorized by the license 
to be imported or manufactured.''\22\ If a manufacturer meets 
this condition, then it is not required to obtain a dealer's 
license, in which case it would likely be excluded from the 
definition of a seller under the PLCAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(11).
    \21\27 C.F.R. Sec. 478.41(b). (``Payment of the license fee as an 
importer or manufacturer of destructive devices, ammunition for 
destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition or as a dealer in 
destructive devices includes the privilege of importing or 
manufacturing firearms other than destructive devices and ammunition . 
. . , or dealing in firearms other than destructive devices, as the 
case may be, by such a licensee at the licensed premises.'') (emphasis 
added).
    \22\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the PLCAA defines negligent entrustment as ``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 likely to, and does, 
use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of 
physical injury to the person or others,''\23\ a plaintiff's 
claim of negligent entrustment will be asserted under state 
law. For example, Washington state courts have held that a 
common-law tort claim of negligent entrustment can be brought 
against both retail firearms dealers and manufacturers.\24\ 
However, even if a state has its own interpretation and permits 
a suit for negligent entrustment to proceed against a 
manufacturer, the federal definition of seller might preclude 
such a suit.\25\ This means that a manufacturer excepted from 
the federal requirement to obtain a dealer's license, as 
described above, would not qualify as a seller under PLCAA and 
therefore would continue to be immune from suits for negligent 
entrustment. Alternatively, a manufacturer who is licensed as a 
dealer under federal law would qualify as a seller and would be 
subject to suits for negligent entrustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\15 U.S.C. 7903(5)(B).
    \24\See Berthony v. Walt Failor's, Inc., 653 P.2d 280 (Wash. 1980) 
(holding that firearms dealers (1) owe a common law duty not to provide 
weapons to unfit persons and (2) owe a common law duty to third parties 
injured by weapons made available to an unfit person by a firearms 
dealer). See also Johnson v. Bulls Eye Shooter Supply, No. 03-2-093932-
8, 2003 WL 21629244, at *4 (Wash. Jun. 27, 2003) (citing Knott v. 
Liberty Jewelry and Loan, Inc., 748 P.2d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988), as 
not precluding civil actions against retail dealers or manufacturers of 
firearms).
    \25\U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. (``This Constitution, and the Laws 
of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all 
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the 
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in 
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or 
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the second exception, a seller may also be subject to 
an action for negligence per se, a term that the PLCAA does not 
define. This term generally means negligence established as a 
matter of law, so that breach of the duty is not a jury 
question.\26\ In other words, a court could adopt the 
requirements of a legislative enactment or regulation as the 
standard of conduct for a reasonable person.\27\ If it does so, 
then the individual who violates the statute or regulation is 
automatically deemed negligent and the jury is not asked to 
determine if such individual acted in a reasonable manner.\28\ 
Thus, whether a violation of a statute constitutes negligence 
per se is a question of state law.\29\ Accordingly, a plaintiff 
may proceed under the second exception of the PLCAA if the suit 
alleges that the seller violated a statute and that relevant 
statute provides that one may be held strictly liable for 
violating the particular statute or regulation. Conversely, if 
applicable state law allows the question of negligence to go to 
the jury even when the defendant has violated a statute or 
regulation--in other words, there is no negligence per se 
rule--then the second exception would not apply, and such a 
suit would be barred by the PLCAA unless it qualified as 
another listed exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) at 1057 (``Negligence per 
se usually arises from a statutory violation.'').
    \27\Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 286 (1965). A court may 
choose to adopt a law or regulation for the standard of a reasonable 
person if the law's purpose is found to be, exclusively or in part, 
``(a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose 
interest is invaded, (b) to protect the particular interest which is 
invaded, (c) to protect that interest against the kind of arm harm 
which has resulted, and (d) to protect that interest against the 
particular hazard from which the harm results.''
    \28\Id. at Sec. 288B(1). This is the rule in followed in a majority 
of courts. See S. M. Speiser, C. F. Krause and A. W. Gans, 2 The 
American Law of Torts (1985 cum. supp. 1998) at 1029. However, some 
courts appear to have limited the ``per se'' rule to situations where 
there has been a violation of a specific requirement of a law, i.e., 
legislation that expresses rules of conduct in specific and concrete 
terms as opposed to general or abstract principles. Id. at 1034-35
    \29\The statute in question in a negligence per se claim is most 
frequently statutes adopted by state legislatures, ``but equally 
applies to regulations adopted by state administrative bodies, 
ordinances adopted by local councils, and federal statutes as well as 
regulations promulgated by federal agencies.'' Restatement (Third) of 
Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm Sec. 14 cmt. a (2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The negligent entrustment/negligence per se exception is 
among the most frequently litigated of the exceptions to the 
PLCAA. There have been a few instances of wronged persons 
recovering damages under the negligent entrustment exception, 
though they required extreme situations. Nonetheless, the vast 
majority of negligent entrustment and negligence per se claims 
made by victims and survivors of gun violence have been 
rejected by the courts.\30\ Courts have stated that a person 
cannot sue the gun industry using only the negligent 
entrustment exception outlined in PLCAA. Instead, anyone trying 
to use this exception must first find a pre-existing state or 
federal law that pertains to the negligent entrustment of 
firearms that was violated first.\31\ Since states have a 
variety of different laws pertaining to firearms, and there are 
no on-point federal laws to handle these issues, PLCAA 
exception outcomes can vary widely depending on where they are 
brought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\See Jefferies v. District of Columbia, 916 F.Supp.2d 42 (D.D.C. 
2013) and Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2013).
    \31\See Phillips v. Lucky Gunner, LLC, 84 F.Supp.3d 1216 (D. Colo. 
2015) (a negligent entrustment claim brought by surviving family 
members of victims of Aurora, Colorado mass shooting under PLCAA would 
not be recognized without a state law claim).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The third exception to the PLCAA, known as the ``predicate 
exception,'' requires the plaintiff to assert, as part of their 
claim, that the manufacturer or seller knowingly committed a 
violation of an underlying statute, i.e., a ``predicate 
statute.'' This exception has been the most examined by courts, 
though with mixed results. A case that proceeds under the third 
exception often turns on whether the predicate statute is 
applicable to the sale or marketing of the product. Courts have 
tended to interpret this exception narrowly, applying it only 
to laws that explicitly pertain to the sale or marketing of 
firearms and ammunition. However, some courts have diverged 
from this interpretation and held that ``applicable'' statutes 
do not have to specifically address the gun industry to merit 
the exception.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\See Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. 
App. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The only federal appellate courts to consider the issue--
the Second\33\ and Ninth Circuits\34\--have both found in split 
decisions that the PLCAA barred claims brought under generally 
applicable public nuisance and negligence statutes. The same 
result has been reached by state courts in Alaska\35\ and 
Illinois\36\ and a federal district court in the District of 
Columbia. State appellate courts in Connecticut,\37\ 
Indiana,\38\ and New York,\39\ however, have allowed such suits 
to proceed. Unlike these cases, the two cases in the federal 
appellate courts involved allegations that gun manufacturers 
and distributors knowingly sold firearms to straw purchasers 
who, in turn, were selling the firearms to criminals. Despite 
its limitations, the predicate exception has shown itself to be 
the most viable means for victims and survivors of gun violence 
to circumvent PLCAA at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\City of New York v. Beretta USA Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 
2008) (Predicate exception was meant to apply only to statutes that 
actually regulate the firearms industry, in a manner similar to 
enumerated examples of predicate statutes in the Act that regulate 
record-keeping and prohibiting participation in direct illegal sales).
    \34\Ileto v. Glock Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (PLCAA 
intended to preempt general tort theories of liability like public 
nuisance statutes).
    \35\Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2013) (Defendant 
could not be held liable for negligence per se or knowingly violating 
applicable statutes if the firearm was stolen; firearm theft would 
preclude dealer's liability under PLCAA's negligent entrustment 
exceptions).
    \36\Adames v. Sheehan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009).
    \37\Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, 202 A.3d 262.
    \38\Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. App. 
2007).
    \39\City of New York v. Bob Moates' Sport Shop, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 
237 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fourth and fifth exceptions permit breach of contract 
or warranty actions against a seller, as well as tort actions 
for death, injuries, or property damage incurred as a result of 
a design defect or manufacturing defect. Though the fourth 
exception appears straightforward on its face, no claimant to 
date has successfully used this exception. In fact, there are 
no known cases where the breach of contract, warranty, or 
defect in design exceptions have been used to assist victims 
and survivors of gun violence or hold the gun industry 
accountable for business practices that endangered or ended 
people's lives. The design defect exception is limited to 
situations where a firearm is used as intended or in a 
reasonably foreseeable manner. PLCAA precludes a suit for a 
claim of product defect against a manufacturer if the discharge 
of the product was caused by a volitional act that constitutes 
a crime.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\See Adames, supra, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, there is an exception to the fifth exception. The 
exception precludes a suit ``where the discharge of the product 
was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal 
offense''\41\ because that act would be considered ``the sole 
proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries, or 
property damage.''\42\ In other words, causes of action 
premised on defect in design are only viable if the use of the 
product was not a ``volitional act that constituted a criminal 
offense.''\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\15 U.S.C. Sec. 7903(5)(A)(v).
    \42\Id.
    \43\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The last exception to the PLCAA permits actions or 
proceedings commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the 
Gun Control Act (chapter 44 of title 18)\44\ or National 
Firearms Act (chapter 53 of title 26)\45\ against federal 
firearms licensees through the administrative or civil 
proceedings provided for in those statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Gun Control Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.
    \45\National Firearms Act, codified at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. GUN INDUSTRY IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY DISADVANTAGES THE PUBLIC 
                                INTEREST

    Negligence--the duty to use reasonable care to not injure 
others--is the most basic principle of our civil justice 
system. In any other industry, businesses owe a duty of care to 
their clients and to the greater public. A person harmed by a 
consumer product other than guns can generally bring a claim in 
court to recover damages if they can prove the manufacturer 
designed a defective product or otherwise acted dangerously or 
irresponsibly. Federal law sets caps on the amount a plaintiff 
may recover through civil lawsuits against certain industries, 
such as the railroad and nuclear power industries, but no other 
consumer product industry enjoys the extensive immunity granted 
to the gun industry by the PLCAA. For example, though both the 
vaccine and automotive industries are afforded some protection 
from civil liability, they have compensation mechanisms for 
people injured by their products.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\See Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and 
Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-148, Div. C, codified at 42 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 247d-6d, 247d-6e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the context of a public health emergency, such as the 
COVID-19 pandemic, immunizing certain persons and entities from 
liability was necessary to ensure that potentially life-saving 
countermeasures could be efficiently developed, deployed, and 
administered. The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness 
Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) to limit legal liability for losses relating to 
the administration of medical countermeasures such as 
diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines temporarily, while PLCAA 
bestows a permanent limitation on liability upon the gun 
industry. The sole exception to PREP Act immunity is for death 
or serious physical injury caused by ``willful misconduct.'' 
However, individuals who die or suffer serious injuries 
directly caused by the administration of covered 
countermeasures may be eligible to receive compensation through 
the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\42 U.S.C. Sec. 247d-6e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the crucial role civil liability plays in public 
safety and injury prevention, the PLCAA affords the gun 
industry broader immunity than other consumer product 
industries. Civil litigation against the tobacco, automotive, 
and pharmaceutical industries based on harm their products 
caused to the public triggered significant, industry-wide 
safety improvements for potentially dangerous products. 
Numerous lawsuits against the tobacco industry in the 1990s 
resulted in a historic settlement and many changes in the way 
the industry marketed its products. Lawsuits against car 
manufacturers have been a crucial element of ongoing efforts to 
ensure the safety of motor vehicles. In contrast, because the 
PLCAA has been read to exempt gun companies from negligence 
liability generally, unless a knowing violation of law is 
proven, bad actors in the gun industry are given more 
protection from litigation than makers of cars, opioids, or 
tobacco products.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\See J. S. Vernick, L. Rutkow, and D. A. Salmon, ``Availability 
of Litigation as a Public Health Tool for Firearm Injury Prevention: 
Comparison of Guns, Vaccines, and Motor Vehicles,'' American Journal of 
Public Health 97, no. 11 (2007): 1991-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though the PLCAA provides exceptions, they are narrow 
and difficult to prove. It has deterred, limited, or blocked 
lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers under 
theories of general negligence, public nuisance, and/or product 
defect brought by both private parties and municipal entities. 
As previously stated, to fit within a narrow exception to 
overcome the PLCAA's special protection,generallya plaintiff 
must establish a knowing violation of a state or federal 
statute prior to bringing a general negligence or nuisance 
claim, and the law effectively precludes any product liability 
claims.\49\ Very few lawsuits against the gun industry have 
survived pretrial efforts to dismiss since passage of the PLCAA 
in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\See 15 U.S.C. 7903(5)(A)(iii) and (v); Adames v. Sheahan, 909 
N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009) (PLCAA prohibited product liability claims of 
defectively designed handgun and failure to warn); Travieso v. Glock 
Inc., 526 F. Supp. 3d 533 (D. Ariz. 2021) (similar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In terms of product liability, it is critical to note that 
PLCAA disadvantages non-gun owners and gun-owners alike who are 
victims of gun violence. PLCAA makes it nearly impossible for 
gun owners injured because of a failure to include basic safety 
features, such as magazine disconnect safeties or load chamber 
indicators, to file suits and compel the gun industry to 
design, manufacture and sell safer firearms. Worse, since guns 
are the only consumer product exempt from federal health and 
safety oversight--thanks to another special carve out from the 
Consumer Product Safety Act--the gun industry is not required 
to include reasonable, lifesaving safety features.\50\ The 
products produced by the vaccine and automotive industries also 
have their safety governed by federal law, while the gun 
industry does not. Since there are very few laws governing gun 
manufacturers and dealers, they are effectively allowed to 
operate without accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\The firearm industry is not subject to federal safety 
regulations because firearms do not come under the jurisdiction of the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) since they are outside the 
definition of ``consumer product'' under the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA) pursuant to a special exemption, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The PLCAA has also prevented victims and survivors from 
bringing suits premised on theories commonly brought on behalf 
of victims of every other industry--that they otherwise would 
bring--based on the belief that such suits will only waste time 
and money to be dismissed eventually. For example, a repeal of 
PLCAA could allow actions to hold the gun industry accountable 
for the negligent distribution of guns that supply the criminal 
gun market.

                III. ATF AND THE NATIONAL TRACING CENTER

A. Firearms Tracing Data

    The ATF National Tracing Center (NTC) is the United States' 
only crime gun tracing facility. The NTC is the only agency 
authorized to trace U.S. and foreign manufactured firearms for 
international, Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies through the Firearm Trace System database, which it 
maintains. It only traces crime guns for the purpose of 
providing investigative leads for law enforcement agencies for 
such purposes as combatting violent crime and terrorism and 
enhancing public safety. In response to requests from law 
enforcement, the NTC provides ATF special agents and other law 
enforcement agencies with Firearms Trace Result Reports 
commonly referred to as ``trace data.''
    Firearms tracing is the systematic tracking of the movement 
of a firearm recovered by law enforcement officials (typically 
at a crime scene or criminal arrest) from its first sale by the 
manufacturer or importer through the distribution chain 
(wholesaler/retailer) to the first retail purchaser. It can be 
used to link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal 
investigation; to identify potential traffickers, to determine 
whether sellers are licensed or unlicensed; and to detect in-
state, interstate, and international patterns in the sources 
and kinds of crime guns.
    For many years, crime firearm tracing data was publicly 
available under the provisions of the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) and was routinely used by city officials and law 
enforcement agencies to determine the sources of illegally 
trafficked firearms and to identify corrupt gun dealers and the 
types of guns most often traced to crime. Of the lawsuits 
against gun manufacturers and dealers that were not dismissed, 
analyses of ATF firearms trace and investigative data by 
nongovernmental parties were submitted as evidence showing 
liability on the part of gun manufacturers and/or dealers. The 
city of New York pursued a public nuisance civil suit against 
multiple gun manufacturers based in part on ATF trace and 
investigative data that were acquired under a strict 
confidentiality order entered by a federal judge before the 
disclosure limits were enacted.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\See City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A Corp., 429 F.Supp.2d 517 
(E.D.N.Y. April 27, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Tiahrt Amendment

    In a series of appropriations acts enacted since 2003, 
language restricting release of firearm trace information has 
given ATF no discretion to disclose information from the 
database.\52\ Often referred to as the ``Tiahrt 
Amendment,''\53\ the rider prohibits ATF from releasing any 
data contained in the database, except on a case-by-case basis 
to individual law enforcement agencies. There is also a 
prohibition on use of the data in civil litigation. Over the 
years, the Amendment has been reenacted several times with some 
changes, including the addition of exceptions and 
clarifications, but the prohibition on public disclosure of 
firearms tracing data has remained the same. The most recent 
iteration of the Tiahrt Amendment provided that the 
prohibitions were to apply during the current fiscal year and 
each fiscal year thereafter.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Section 644 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 
2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7 (2003), provided that ``except that such 
records may continue to be disclosed to the extent and in the manner 
that records so collected, maintained, or obtained have been 
disclosed'' under FOIA before the date of enactment.
    \53\The Tiahrt Amendment was first added by Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) to 
the 2003 federal appropriations bill and was signed into law on 
February 20, 2003.
    \54\See Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2012, Pub. L. No. 112-55 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tiahrt Amendment's restriction on the release of 
firearm trace data represents an unwarranted restriction on 
public access to information that was historically available to 
law enforcement, policy makers, and the public under FOIA.\55\ 
Proponents of the restrictions contend that the business 
records of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) should be 
confidential because the release of tracing data could 
interfere with ongoing criminal investigations and put the 
lives of law enforcement, confidential sources, witnesses, and 
others at risk. However, prior to implementation of the 
exemptions, FOIA enabled ATF to withhold any information that 
could interfere with law enforcement investigations.\56\ When 
the agency released information to the public from the Firearms 
Tracing System, only a ``Trace Data FOIA Extract'' was released 
that included ``only FOIA disclosable data elements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\See City of Chicago v. U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 423 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 2005) (2005 
Appropriations Act amounted to a change in substantive FOIA law in that 
it exempted from disclosure data previously available to the public 
under FOIA).
    \56\FOIA explicitly protects from disclosure any information that 
could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings; 
could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential 
source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any 
private institution which furnished information on a confidential 
basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal 
law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or 
by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence 
investigation, information furnished by a confidential source; would 
disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations 
or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement 
investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be 
expected to risk circumvention of the law; or could reasonably be 
expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Republicans' Letter Fuels ``National Gun Registry'' Conspiracy

    ``BREAKING: ATF gun registry includes almost 1 BILLION 
firearm records,'' read a post from Gun Owners of America in 
January. Citing a letter from ATF in response to an inquiry 
from Representative Michael Cloud (R-TX) and 51 other 
Republicans regarding ATF's Out of Business Records (OBR), the 
Washington Free Beacon reported that ATF manages a database of 
920,664,765 firearm purchase records.\57\ Gun advocacy groups 
and conservatives characterized the story as proof that the ATF 
was maintaining a registry to secretly track gun owners. 
However, no gun registry exists. There is no universal gun 
registration or licensing requirement for individuals at the 
federal level, and federal law explicitly prohibits a national 
gun registry.\58\ Moreover, an ATF appropriations rider 
prohibits DOJ from using government funds to create a firearm 
registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\A. Kredo, Biden Admin Has Records on Nearly One Billion Guns, 
Washington Free Beacon, January 31, 2022.
    \58\See the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, Pub. L 99-308, codified 
at 18 U.S.C.Sec. 926, prohibits ``any system of registration of 
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transaction or dispositions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While dealers (FFLs) are normally the custodians of 
firearms transfer records, when they go out of business, their 
records must be sent to, and maintained by, the NTC to 
facilitate firearm traces.\59\ The records include information 
about gun sales and transfers. But those records are not stored 
in a searchable database or a format consistent with a 
registry. Federal law prohibits ATF from keeping the records in 
a searchable format. Each time ATF receives out-of-business 
records, they are scanned as ``non-searchable, static images'' 
that cannot be detected using optical character recognition or 
searched for identifying information. The records may only be 
accessed to perform a firearm trace and staff must review each 
record individually. The NTC processes an average of 5.5 
million of these records per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(g)(4), which provides that where a 
firearms or ammunition business is discontinued and discontinuance of 
the business is absolute, records required to be kept shall be 
delivered within 30 days after the discontinuance to the Attorney 
General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because time is of the essence to develop leads in criminal 
investigations and any delay means a perpetrator remains on the 
street longer, modernization was necessary to improve the 
response time of tracing guns recovered in crimes (the records 
were originally stored using outdated microfiche technology). 
In 2006, ATF developed the OBR Imaging System due to practical 
concerns related to maintaining paper and microfilm records. 
This system was replaced by the Enterprise Content Management 
imaging repository system.
    Among the questions asked in his letter, Representative 
Cloud asked, ``How many records does the ATF's Out-of-Business 
Records Center (OOB) have in total? How many of these records 
have been processed into a digitalized format?''\60\ From 2011 
through 2017, film records were converted to digital 
images.\61\ As of November 2021, nearly 866 million of ATF's 
more than 920 million out-of-business records were 
digitized.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Letter, Hon. Michael Cloud, U.S. House of Representatives, 
November 21, 2021, https://www.scribd.com/document/541554443/Cloud-ATF-
Letter-FINAL.
    \61\D. Funke, Fact check: Claim that ATF has ``gun registry'' 
includes with 1 billion records is missing context, USA TODAY, February 
9, 2022.
    \62\Letter, Daniel L. Board, Jr., Ass't Director, Public and 
Governmental Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, U.S. Dep't of Justice, December 12, 2021, https://
freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Response-Rep.-Michael-
Cloud-R-TX-51-x-GOP-co-signers_Federal-Gun-Registry-signed-letter.pdf 
(At the time, ATF managed 920,664,765 OBR including digital and an 
estimated number of hard copy records awaited image conversion and an 
estimated 865,787,086 of those records were in digitalized format).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop H.R. 2814: ``An Unending 
Crisis: Essential Steps to Reducing Gun Violence and Mass 
Shootings,'' held on May 20, 2021, before the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from:
           The Hon. Vikki Goodwin, Member of the House 
        of Representatives, State of Texas;
           Fred Guttenberg, Author and Gun Safety 
        Advocate;
           J. Adam Skaggs, Chief Counsel and Policy 
        Director, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence;
           Michael E. Grady, Senior Pastor, Prince of 
        Peace Christian Fellowship; and
           Dianna Muller, Founder, The DC Project.
    The hearing explored firearm safety issues, including the 
need to repeal the PLCAA. A witness provided testimony about 
the problems presented by the unprecedented nationwide immunity 
from lawsuits bestowed upon the gun industry by the PLCAA.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 20, 2022, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill, H.R. 2814 favorably reported with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a rollcall vote of 
24 to 18, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 2814:
    1. An amendment by Mr. Massie, to condition the effective 
date of the Act (the Equal Justice for Victims of Gun Violence 
Act of 2022) on repeal of section 319F-3 of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6d), was defeated by a rollcall 
vote of 18 to 23. The vote was as follows:


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    2. The motion to report H.R. 2814, as amended, favorably 
was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 24 to 18. The vote was as 
follows:


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of House rule X, are incorporated in the descriptive portions 
of this report.

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

   New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to 
clause (3)(c)(3) of House rule XIII and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received from the Director of Congressional Budget 
Office a budgetary analysis and a cost estimate of this bill.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H.R. 2814 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, H.R. 2814 would restore the rights of victims 
of gun violence to hold the firearms industry accountable 
through civil and administrative proceedings when it acts 
carelessly and disregards reasonable safeguards that would 
protect the American public, by repealing the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which provides immunity to firearm 
or ammunition manufacturers, sellers, importers, dealers, and 
trade associations for damages resulting from the criminal or 
unlawful misuse of a firearm, and reversing limitations on the 
disclosure of gun trace data that could be useful in such 
proceedings.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 2814 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 
9(e), or 9(f) of House Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short Title. Section 1 of the bill sets forth the 
short title of the bill as the ``Equal Access to Justice for 
Victims of Gun Violence Act of 2022.''
    Sec. 2. Repeal of Certain Provisions of the Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Section 2 of the bill repeals 
sections 2 through 4 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
Arms Act (15 U.S.C. 7901-7903), which prohibits civil actions 
against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, seller, importer, 
dealer, or trade association for damages resulting from the 
criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm.
    Sec. 3. Discoverability and Admissibility of Gun Trace 
Information in Civil Proceedings. Section 3 would mandate that 
each agency develop a written application to be used by 
designated persons to request a case file review.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets and 
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

               PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

  [(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
          [(1) The Second Amendment to the United States 
        Constitution provides that the right of the people to 
        keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
          [(2) The Second Amendment to the United States 
        Constitution protects the rights of individuals, 
        including those who are not members of a militia or 
        engaged in military service or training, to keep and 
        bear arms.
          [(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against 
        manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of 
        firearms that operate as designed and intended, which 
        seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused 
        by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including 
        criminals.
          [(4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, 
        and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States 
        are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local 
        laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 
        1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export 
        Control Act.
          [(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged 
        in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful 
        design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, 
        importation, or sale to the public of firearms or 
        ammunition products that have been shipped or 
        transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, 
        and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those 
        who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or 
        ammunition products that function as designed and 
        intended.
          [(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an 
        entire industry for harm that is solely caused by 
        others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public 
        confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the 
        diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil 
        liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of 
        other industries and economic sectors lawfully 
        competing in the free enterprise system of the United 
        States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on 
        interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
          [(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated 
        by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and 
        private interest groups and others are based on 
        theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the 
        common law and jurisprudence of the United States and 
        do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common 
        law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a 
        maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand 
        civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the 
        framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the 
        legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion 
        of liability would constitute a deprivation of the 
        rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a 
        citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth 
        Amendment to the United States Constitution.
          [(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated 
        by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, 
        private interest groups and others attempt to use the 
        judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of 
        government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce 
        through judgments and judicial decrees thereby 
        threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and 
        weakening and undermining important principles of 
        federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the 
        sister States.
  [(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
          [(1) To prohibit causes of action against 
        manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of 
        firearms or ammunition products, and their trade 
        associations, for the harm solely caused by the 
        criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or 
        ammunition products by others when the product 
        functioned as designed and intended.
          [(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of 
        firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, 
        including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and 
        competitive or recreational shooting.
          [(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and 
        immunities, as applied to the States, under the 
        Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 
        pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.
          [(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose 
        unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign 
        commerce.
          [(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment 
        to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, 
        dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition 
        products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to 
        assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for 
        a redress of their grievances.
          [(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers 
        doctrine and important principles of federalism, State 
        sovereignty and comity between sister States.
          [(7) To exercise congressional power under article 
        IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the 
        United States Constitution.

[SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS 
                    IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

  [(a) In general.--A qualified civil liability action may not 
be brought in any Federal or State court.
  [(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil 
liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of 
this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which 
the action was brought or is currently pending.

[SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

  [In this Act:
          [(1) Engaged in the business.--The term ``engaged in 
        the business'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, 
        and, as applied to a seller of ammunition, means a 
        person who devotes time, attention, and labor to the 
        sale of ammunition as a regular course of trade or 
        business with the principal objective of livelihood and 
        profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.
          [(2) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, 
        with respect to a qualified product, a person who is 
        engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in 
        interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to 
        engage in business as such a manufacturer under chapter 
        44 of title 18, United States Code.
          [(3) Person.--The term ``person'' means any 
        individual, corporation, company, association, firm, 
        partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other 
        entity, including any governmental entity.
          [(4) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified 
        product'' means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph 
        (A) or (B) 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), or ammunition (as 
        defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of such title), or a 
        component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has 
        been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 
        commerce.
          [(5) Qualified civil liability action.--
                  [(A) In general.--The term ``qualified civil 
                liability action'' means a civil action or 
                proceeding or an administrative proceeding 
                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 the criminal or unlawful 
                misuse of a qualified product by the person or 
                a third party, but shall not include--
                          [(i) an action 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) an action brought against a 
                        seller for negligent entrustment or 
                        negligence per se;
                          [(iii) an action in which a 
                        manufacturer or seller of a qualified 
                        product knowingly violated a State or 
                        Federal statute applicable to the sale 
                        or marketing of the product, and the 
                        violation was a proximate cause of the 
                        harm for which relief is sought, 
                        including--
                                  [(I) any case in which the 
                                manufacturer or seller 
                                knowingly made any false entry 
                                in, or failed to make 
                                appropriate entry in, any 
                                record required to be kept 
                                under Federal or State law with 
                                respect to the qualified 
                                product, or aided, abetted, or 
                                conspired with any person in 
                                making any false or fictitious 
                                oral or written statement with 
                                respect to any fact material to 
                                the lawfulness of the sale or 
                                other disposition of a 
                                qualified product; or
                                  [(II) any case in which the 
                                manufacturer or seller aided, 
                                abetted, or conspired with any 
                                other person to sell or 
                                otherwise dispose of a 
                                qualified product, knowing, or 
                                having reasonable cause to 
                                believe, that the actual buyer 
                                of the qualified product was 
                                prohibited from possessing or 
                                receiving a firearm or 
                                ammunition under subsection (g) 
                                or (n) of section 922 of title 
                                18, United States Code;
                          [(iv) an action for breach of 
                        contract or warranty in connection with 
                        the purchase of the product;
                          [(v) an action for death, physical 
                        injuries or property damage resulting 
                        directly from a defect in design or 
                        manufacture of the product, when used 
                        as intended or in a reasonably 
                        foreseeable manner, except that where 
                        the discharge of the product was caused 
                        by a volitional act that constituted a 
                        criminal offense, then such act shall 
                        be considered the sole proximate cause 
                        of any resulting death, personal 
                        injuries or property damage; or
                          [(vi) an action or proceeding 
                        commenced by the Attorney General to 
                        enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of 
                        title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, 
                        United States Code.
                  [(B) Negligent entrustment.--As used in 
                subparagraph (A)(ii), the term ``negligent 
                entrustment'' 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 likely to, and does, use 
                the product in a manner involving unreasonable 
                risk of physical injury to the person or 
                others.
                  [(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 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 1 of the requirements 
                under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph 
                (A).
          [(6) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect 
        to a qualified product--
                  [(A) 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 title 18, United 
                States Code;
                  [(B) 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 title 18, United States 
                Code; or
                  [(C) a person engaged in the business of 
                selling ammunition (as defined in section 
                921(a)(17)(A) of title 18, United States Code) 
                in interstate or foreign commerce at the 
                wholesale or retail level.
          [(7) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the 
        several States of the United States, the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
        Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
        the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory 
        or possession of the United States, and any political 
        subdivision of any such place.
          [(8) Trade association.--The term ``trade 
        association'' means--
                  [(A) any corporation, unincorporated 
                association, federation, business league, 
                professional or business organization not 
                organized or operated for profit and no part of 
                the net earnings of which inures to the benefit 
                of any private shareholder or individual;
                  [(B) that is an organization described in 
                section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code 
                of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 
                501(a) of such Code; and
                  [(C) 2 or more members of which are 
                manufacturers or sellers of a qualified 
                product.
          [(9) Unlawful misuse.--The term ``unlawful misuse'' 
        means conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or 
        regulation as it relates to the use of a qualified 
        product.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             Minority Views

    H.R. 2814, the ``Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun 
Violence Act of 2022,'' is bad policy based on false premises 
that stem from the Democrats' deep-seated desire to eradicate 
the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. H.R. 
2814 repeals the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 
(PLCAA), a bipartisan law passed in 2005 to provide limited 
liability protections for firearms manufacturers, sellers, and 
trade associations. It also makes federal firearms trace data 
accessible and admissible for use in civil cases. With H.R. 
2814, Democrats hope to entice the trial bar to harass 
otherwise lawful firearms manufacturers and retailers with 
frivolous litigation, eroding Americans' Second Amendment 
rights.

             THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

    H.R. 2814's most significant feature is its repeal of the 
PLCAA. Repealing these provisions has been a long-standing 
objective for some Democrats, including President Biden.\1\ 
Democrat want to ``bankrupt[] the firearms industry through 
endless, meritless lawsuits,'' and give ``anti-gun 
extremists''' what they need to ``economically eviscerate 
lawful gun manufacturers and retailers.''\2\ Repealing the 
PLCAA seems likely to achieve that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Cf. Assault on Firearms Industry Continues, National Rifle 
Association (May 3, 2021), https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210503/
assault-on-firearms-industry-continues.
    \2\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress enacted the PLCAA on a bipartisan basis in 
response to aggressive, creative litigation that threatened to 
overwhelm the firearms industry.\3\ Congress's findings in the 
PLCAA described the trial bar's novel approach and its harmful 
effects on the American people.\4\ The PLCAA enjoyed 
significant bipartisan support, including 59 Democrats in the 
House and 14 in the Senate (including then-Senate Minority 
Leader Harry Reid), and 34 states had similar protections in 
place at the time.\5\ Contrary to what Democrats claim, the 
PLCAA is not the only action Congress has taken to protect 
certain industries from the trial bar's efforts:\6\ ``Vaccine 
producers, Internet platform providers, and small aircraft 
manufacturers, to name a few, all enjoy similar or even more 
expansive liability protection under federal law.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See, e.g., Jason Ouimet, Protecting the PLCAA, National Rifle 
Association (Nov. 27, 2020), https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/
content/protecting-the-plcaa/; see also Linda S. Mullenix, Outgunned No 
More?: Reviving A Firearms Industry Mass Tort Litigation, 49 Sw. L. 
Rev. 390, 398-99 (2021) (``In the late 1990s and early twenty-first 
century, various victims of crime and gun violence attempted to sue gun 
industry defendants for harms that were allegedly caused by the misuse 
of firearms by third parties (including criminals). One cluster of such 
lawsuits were pursued by individuals. Other gun violence litigation was 
pursued by municipalities, government officials, or other 
entities.Plaintiffs' attorneys pursued these lawsuits based on a 
variety of legal theories. . . . These lawsuits largely either were 
dismissed before trial or were unsuccessful on the merits. . . . 
Although the firearms defendants could take some comfort in their 
continued deflection or defeat of gun litigation, these defendants 
nonetheless had legitimate concerns about their continued vulnerability 
to litigation. The gun industry had growing concerns about its own 
exposure to mass liability against a backdrop of other evolving, 
successful mass tort litigation, as well as the increasing state and 
federal receptivity to entertain aggregate litigation pursuant to a 
variety of legal theories. Moreover, the states' attorney generals' 
massive 1998 settlement with the tobacco defendants signaled that even 
powerful industries that had long pursued `no settlement' strategies, 
coupled with a record of litigation victories, could be vulnerable to 
continued, extensive litigation.'' (citations omitted; emphases 
added)).
    \4\See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 7901(a)(3), (5)-(7) (``Lawsuits have been 
commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers 
of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money 
damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms 
by third parties, including criminals. . . . Businesses . . . are not, 
and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally 
or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that 
function as designed and intended. . . . The possibility of imposing 
liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by 
others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our 
Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right 
and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other 
industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free 
enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable 
burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States. . . . 
The liability actions commenced or contemplated. . . are based on 
theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and 
jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide 
expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions 
by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil 
liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the 
Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several 
States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation 
of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of 
the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution.'' (emphasis added)).
    \5\S. 397, 109th Cong. (2005); David Kopel, The Protection of 
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Facts and policy, Washington Post (May 24, 
2016) (explaining the bill ``was passed by the U.S. House of 
Representatives in October 2005 by a bipartisan vote of 283 to 144. The 
measure had passed the Senate in July by a vote of 65 to 31. . . . 
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) played a major role in 
passing the legislation. At the time, Bernie Sanders was U.S. 
representative, and he supported the bill. . . .'').
    \6\Ouimet, Protecting the PLCAA, supra note 3; cf. Chelsea Parsons 
et al., The Gun Industry in America, American Progress (Aug. 6, 2020) 
(describing Congressional consideration of a bill to limit ``lawsuits 
against the restaurant industry for harm caused by obesity''), https://
www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-industry-america/; see generally 
Curtis Wilkie, The Fall of the House of Zeus: The Rise and Ruin of 
America's Most Powerful Trial Lawyer (Crown 2011) (describing 
aggressive strategies of the trial bar in targeting defendants).
    \7\See Ouimet, Protecting the PLCAA, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress's purposes in enacting the PLCAA help to 
understand how its repeal would likely undermine the right to 
keep and bear arms. Congress's goals in 2005 included 
preserving ``access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for 
all lawful purposes,'' and guaranteeing fundamental rights and 
freedoms.\8\ Repealing the PLCAA would invite a new avalanche 
of meritless lawsuits. If successful in overwhelming the 
industry, such litigation could effectively deny law-abiding 
Americans access to lawful firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\15 U.S.C. Sec. 7901(b)(1)-(3) (``Purposes'') (``(1) To prohibit 
causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and 
importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade 
associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful 
misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the 
product functioned as designed and intended. (2) To preserve a 
citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful 
purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive 
or recreational shooting. (3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, 
privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 
section 5 of that Amendment.'' (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The firearms industry remains a significant part of the 
American economy. According to one recent report that looked at 
direct and indirect employment relating to firearms, ``the gun 
industry is responsible for more than 300,000 jobs and more 
than $15 billion in wages.''\9\ Trying to cripple an industry 
that employs so many--during a time of sky-high inflation--is 
another example of how the Biden Administration pushes extreme 
policies that hurt hardworking Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Andrew Lisa, Jobs the Gun Industry Creates for Your State, Yahoo 
(June 7, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Repeal of the PLCAA could have a serious detrimental effect 
on our nation's law enforcement and armed services readiness. 
During Committee Consideration of the PLCAA in 2005, then-
Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner noted:

          The police along with our military rely on the 
        domestic firearms industry to supply them with reliable 
        and accurate weapons that can best protect them in the 
        line of fire. Abusive firearms lawsuits threaten to 
        bankrupt the domestic firearms industry and leave our 
        police and our troops relying on foreign manufacturers 
        for their own protection.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\H.R Rep. No. 109-124, at 56 (2005).

    By repealing the PLCAA, H.R. 2814 would repeat the very 
same mistakes and create the circumstances for abusive 
litigation that led to the bipartisan passage of the PLCAA in 
2005.

   DESPITE DEMOCRATS' RHETORIC, THE PLCAA DOES NOT OFFER ``BLANKET'' 
                                IMMUNITY

    Although Democrats misleadingly argue that the PLCAA 
provides firearm manufacturers with blanket immunity,\11\ 
Congress reasonably balanced the need to end frivolous 
litigation with the need to hold truly bad actors accountable. 
The PLCAA prevents a plaintiff from bringing a civil liability 
action in any Federal or State court against a firearms 
manufacturer, seller, or trade association resulting from the 
criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by the person or a 
third party.\12\ The statute also includes six exceptions.\13\ 
They are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act 
Sponsors: Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Senator Richard 
Blumenthal (D-CT), https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/One-pager.pdf 
(last visited July 16, 2022) (claiming the ``PLCAA immunizes the gun 
industry from their fundamental duty to act with reasonable care 
towards public safety, empowering the worst actors to act with 
impunity'').
    \12\15 U.S.C. Sec. 7902(a).
    \13\Id. Sec. 7903(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1. An action against a someone convicted of knowingly 
        transferring a firearm or ammunition with knowledge (or 
        reasonable cause) that it will be used to commit a 
        felony.
          2. An action against a seller\14\ for negligent 
        entrustment or negligence per se.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\A manufacturer or trade association that does not fall under 
the definition of ``seller'' could not be sued under this exception. 
See, e.g., Vivian S. Chu, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms 
Act: An Overview of Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers, CRS, 
at 3 (Dec. 20, 2012) (explaining when a manufacturer may not fall under 
the definition of ``seller''), https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42871.pdf 
[hereinafter ``CRS Memo''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3. An action where a manufacturer or seller knowingly 
        violated a law ``applicable to the sale or marketing'' 
        of the product, and that violation was the proximate 
        cause of the plaintiff's injury.
          4. An action for breach of contract or warranty in 
        connection with the purchase of the product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See id. Sec. 7903(5)(A)(iv); see also CRS Memo, supra note 19, 
at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          5. An action raising a design- or manufacturing-
        defect claim. However, this exception does not apply if 
        the firearm discharge ``was caused by a volitional act 
        that constituted a criminal offense . . . .''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See id.; see also CRS Memo, supra note 19, at 7-8 (``For 
example, if a criminal fired a gun without aiming at his victim, but 
the bullet hit the victim as a result of a manufacturing or design 
defect, then the injured person would be statutorily barred from a suit 
against the manufacturer.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          6. An action the attorney general brings to enforce 
        the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 7903(5)(A)(vi); see also CRS Memo, supra 
note 19, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2814 upsets the careful balance crafted by Congress in 
the PLCAA. Instead of respecting the Constitutional rights of 
law-abiding Americans, H.R. 2814 would treat all firearm 
manufacturers and retailers as bad actors responsible for every 
criminal misuse of a firearm.

   COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY AFFIRMED THAT THE PLCAA IS CONSTITUTIONAL

    Plaintiffs have challenged the PLCAA on several 
constitutional grounds, but both federal and state courts have 
almost uniformly upheld the statute.\18\ For example, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected a 
separation-of-powers challenge, an equal protection challenge, 
substantive and procedural due process challenges, and a 
takings challenge.\19\ The Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit has similarly rejected a Commerce Clause challenge, a 
separation-of-powers challenge, a Tenth Amendment challenge, 
and a First Amendment challenge.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See, e.g., Mullenix, supra note 3, at 402 (``[A] handful of gun 
violence suits have broadly challenged the constitutionality of PLCAA, 
but none of these constitutional challenges have been successful. Both 
state and federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of PLCAA as 
a legitimate exercise of congressional legislative power.'' (footnote 
omitted)).
    \19\See Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) 
(``Like all appellate courts that have assessed the constitutionality 
of the PLCAA [the court then cited state court decisions], . . . we 
hold that the Act is constitutional on its face and as applied.'' 
(citations omitted)); id. at 1139 (rejecting separation-of-powers claim 
and explaining ``[h]ere, Congress has amended the applicable law; it 
has not compelled results under old law. The PLCAA sets forth a new 
legal standard--the definition (with exceptions) of a `qualified civil 
liability action'--to be applied to all cases''); id. at 1040-41 
(rejecting the equal protection and substantive due process claims 
because the court had ``no trouble concluding that Congress rationally 
could find that, by insulating the firearms industry from a specified 
set of lawsuits, interstate and foreign commerce of firearms would be 
affected.''); id. at 1141 (rejecting the takings claim because there is 
no vested property right in a cause of action until there is a final, 
unreviewable judgment); id. at 1142 (rejecting the procedural due 
process claim because ``the PLCAA does not impose a procedural 
limitation; rather, it creates a substantive rule of law granting 
immunity to certain parties against certain types of claims'').
    \20\See City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 395 
(2d Cir. 2008) (rejecting the Commerce Clause challenge and noting 
``Congress has not exceeded its authority in this case'' because 
``there can be no question of the interstate character of the industry 
in question and . . . Congress rationally perceived a substantial 
effect on the industry of the litigation that the Act seeks to 
curtail''); id. at 396 (rejecting the separation-of-powers challenge 
``[b]ecause the PLCAA does not merely direct the outcome of cases, but 
changes the applicable law''); id. at 397 (rejecting the Tenth 
Amendment challenge ``because [the PLCAA] imposes no affirmative duty 
of any kind on'' any branch of state government and thus ``does not 
commandeer any branch of state government'' (citation omitted)); id. at 
398 (rejecting the access-to-the-courts First Amendment claim because 
the PLCAA ``immunizes a specific type of defendant from a specific type 
of suit'' and ``does not impede, let alone entirely foreclose, general 
use of the courts by would-be plaintiffs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 RELEASING ATF TRACE DATA IS BAD POLICY

    H.R. 2814 would also make the contents of a federal 
firearms trace database accessible and admissible for use in 
civil actions\21\--a policy Congress has rejected for 
years.\22\ The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives (ATF), which maintains the relevant trace data, has 
explained how
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\H.R. 2814 Sec. 3.
    \22\See, e.g., The ``Tiahrt Amendment'' on Firearms Traces: 
Protecting Gun Owners' Privacy and Law Enforcement Safety, National 
Rifle Association (Jan. 15, 2013), https://www.nraila.org/articles/
20130115/the-tiahrt-amendment-on-firearms-traces-protecting-gun-owners-
privacy-and-law-enforcement-safety.

          Tracing is a systematic process of tracking the 
        movement of a firearm from its manufacture or from its 
        introduction into U.S. commerce by the importer through 
        the distribution chain (wholesalers and retailers), to 
        identify an unlicensed purchaser. That information can 
        help to link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal 
        investigation and identify potential traffickers.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\National Tracing Center, Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Alcohol, 
and Explosives (June 15, 2020), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-
tracing-center.

ATF helps to ``conduct firearms tracing to provide 
investigative leads for federal, state, local and foreign law 
enforcement agencies.''\24\ Put simply, ATF's trace data helps 
law enforcement agencies to track the ``ownership path of 
individual firearms''\25\ when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Id.
    \25\The ``Tiahrt Amendment'' on Firearms Traces, supra note 42 
(internal quotation marks omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Making federal trace data more generally available will 
benefit the trial bar while harming law enforcement 
investigations.\26\ The Fraternal Order of Police has advised 
against releasing trace data, indicating that doing so would 
damage ongoing investigations and place undercover officers in 
danger.\27\ Such information has been misused by the 
plaintiffs' bar in the past, as well. In the frivolous lawsuits 
leading up the PLCAA's passage, plaintiffs ``misused trace data 
as a substitute for actual evidence of wrongdoing by members of 
the [firearms] industry.''\28\ Thus, a primary reason for 
making it accessible for use in civil litigation seems to be to 
further empower the trial bar.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Id.
    \27\ See, e.g., Political Report: One On One With Chuck Canterbury, 
National President, Fraternal Order Of Police, National Rifle 
Association (Jun. 16, 2011), https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110616/
political-report-one-on-one-with-chuck.
    \28\See Keane, supra note 47.
    \29\See generally H.R. 2814 Sec. 3; Assault on Firearms Industry 
Continues, supra note 1 (explaining ``[t]he problem'' is ``trace 
information is relatively useless for legitimate civil actions, and 
would be used merely for inflammatory and political purposes''), 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210503/assault-on-firearms-industry-
continues; Keane, supra note 48; cf. generally Chris Eger, Lawmaker 
Wants ATF Gun Trace Data Open for Use in Lawsuits, Guns.Com (Feb. 29, 
2016), https://www.guns.com/news/2016/02/29/lawmaker-wants-atf-gun-
trace-data-open-for-use-in-lawsuits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 2814 is a thinly veiled effort by Democrats to 
incentivize trial attorneys to generate frivolous litigation 
against firearm manufacturers and retailers--litigation that 
could bankrupt the American firearm industry and significantly 
restrict Americans' Second Amendment rights. I oppose this 
legislation.
                                                Jim Jordan,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]