[madkiwi]

Didn't see if this was posted yet- article on OpinionJournal.com

This week, two unlikely judges shared a small moment of justice on behalf of the Second Amendment.

In Florida, Judge Jorge Labarga, of butterfly ballot fame, threw out a $1.2 million award against the distributor of a handgun used by a kid to shoot his teacher. In the Ninth Circuit, Carter appointee Stephen Reinhardt returned to an earlier antigun opinion and deleted references to the work of Michael Bellesiles, the historian whose Bancroft Prize was revoked because of serious questions about the honesty of his scholarship.

Why are these judicial straws in the wind significant? They mark a trend that began to emerge last year. As Americans have begun to think differently about their personal safety, courts have begun looking at the gun question in a more sober light.

Click here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/clevey/?id=110002984)

[PATH]

Good news but it is tempered by the fact that "those people" are still trying to take away our freedom. Be vigilant and keep fighting!

[4v50 Gary]

Commentary is a bit off the mark. Courts have long established the principles of product liabilitys and deliberate misuse by a consumer in a criminal act does not impart liability. What has happened is that the anti-gun lawyers have suggested that lawsuits based on negligence in distribution be used against anyone in the chain of commerce. It's junk theory of course but the big picture is not to "win" in the courts but to defeat the gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers via increasing business costs; in this case, defense against these lawsuits. Either way, the antis win.