I got a bit ninja'd by this response, but I'll go into more depth.
This exactly. The gun control NGOs that want to disarm the civilian populace realized long ago that they weren't going to get a lot of traction in getting laws passed the normal ways, so they decide to try
lawfare. They decided to try a new tactic by suing gun companies and gun shops, sometimes with the help of Democrat city attorneys or mayors for ridiculous reasons that would never, ever prevail in a fair court of law. But the point wasn't to win, the point was to either leverage concessions or to to bleed the gun companies dry with legal fees fighting cases from cities and towns all across the country until they all go bankrupt. After all, they were either using donor money or more likely
taxpayer money to fund these lawsuits while small stores and manufacturers had to pay out of pocket. (The irony of forcing money from people at gunpoint to argue against their right to have/use guns is dark.) It was a tactic used as an economic end run around the Constitution. They can't ban the guns outright, so they'll just make it too expensive to operate as a seller or maker.
Eventually things got so bad that
Congress passed the PLCAA to block those suits. Normally you wouldn't need to have such legislation, and sometimes people will bring that up as a criticism, but then again you don't have countless cities and NGOs filing facially fraudulent lawsuits to bankrupt other industries, now do we?