Could someone explain to me, why the heck would any politician want to give gun manufacturing companies immunity from prosecution?
I'll try to answer what appears to be an honest question with what I believe is an honest answer Eric, but just knowing what a hot topic this is gives me pause to do so. I don't want to start any flame wars here. I'll just tell it like I see it, as dumb as it may sound to some people.
First of all, I'm not sure if you are speaking directly of a liability on the part of manufacturers of cheap firearms or to the larger issue of the defeat this week of the bill before the senate giving liability protection to gun makers in general (not just mfgs of cheap ones) , but I'll assume the latter.
The bill was not meant to give liability immunity to gun makers, but rather to protect them from what amounts to extortion on the part of local (and state) governments intent on making gun manufacturers responsible for costs incurred due to gun violence in their respective jurisdictions. It was basically meant to be nothing more than a tort reform bill, that was unfortunately turned into a gun control bill. It was meant to be a means of keeping a cap on costs associated with otherwise questionable litigation. The bill came about shortly after the Columbine tragedy began causing several municipalities to file suit against domestic gun manufacturers as a whole for being responsible for such unfortunate incidents.
It really shouldn't have been about guns at all because it basically boils down to a question like this: If your kid were to walk into school and whack 10 kids on the head in the lobby with a shovel, should the shovel manufacturer be held responsible for their deaths? In general, people such as myself, and thankfully, many politicians would say no. Now if shovel manufacturers employed a marketing strategy that promoted what great kid killing devices their shovels were, that might be a different story.
I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of the amendments added to the bill if you want (which I think does include the cheap weapons issue), but that's my overall take on it in a nutshell.
Here's a law professor's viewpoint that came out a few years ago that addresses the matter much better than I can:
