I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to social legislation, but I'm also an ex-lawyer, and I don't like to see people trying to get the courts to do what they should be doing at the polls. So it is with the pending legislation (House and Senate) to exempt gun manufacturers and those who sell them from civil liability.
Guns, like other inherently dangerous products, are sold at the sufferance of the legislature, otherwise they no doubt would have fallen under the weight of the litigation brought against them by victims of violent crime. Legislation defines how they can be sold and what liability have those who make and sell them. No one should seriously argue that these parties could not have forseen the danger of this product. We as a society choose to allow them to be sold anyway, and provide certain protections to enable such commerce.
So, to me, it only makes sense that as long as manufacturers and dealers act within the constraints placed upon them, they should not have further liability. The traditional product liability predicate has been made moot: it is a given that the product is dangerous and everyone involved knows it. Product liability law still applies to things like defective guns that maim their owners or others, but a properly purchased, properly operating and properly used gun that causes harm is something that is already contemplated by the existing gun laws. Clarifying those laws through the present bills makes sense.
I object to the obvious right-wing language in the bills, citing the Second Amendment and practically yelping "Yahoo, we loves us some guns here in the U.S. of A," but the fact remains that the bills are sound. If someone manufactures a good gun, and someone sells it according to all applicable laws and regulations, including the required background checks, then they should not be liability for what some idiot does with it.
Don't like it? Stop voting for politicians who oppose gun control laws.