The US Supreme Court, with the enigmatic John Roberts at the helm, has ducked again, refusing "to block a lawsuit against gun manufacturers accused of negligence for firearms violence in the nation's capital."
I've often wondered--if Sarah Brady's son went on a rampage with that rifle she bought him--would she publicly demand a lawsuit against the store and manufacturer?
Anyway, the thing that particularly caught my eye in this story--aside from the unbelievable judicial arrogance of Michael Farrell-- is who "the lawyer for the gun companies" is--our old pal Ted Olson.
That's the same Ted Olson who argued for the government (after John Ashcroft's lip service declaring the Second Amendment an individual right--except for all those "compelling state interests" that negate the "shall not be infringed" part) and against the right to keep and bear arms in the Emerson, Haney and Bean cases.
Gee, who would have ever thought the gun industry would retain someone who isn't squarely in their camp? I mean, it's not like they should have learned better from Robert Ricker or anything...
I've often wondered--if Sarah Brady's son went on a rampage with that rifle she bought him--would she publicly demand a lawsuit against the store and manufacturer?
Anyway, the thing that particularly caught my eye in this story--aside from the unbelievable judicial arrogance of Michael Farrell-- is who "the lawyer for the gun companies" is--our old pal Ted Olson.
That's the same Ted Olson who argued for the government (after John Ashcroft's lip service declaring the Second Amendment an individual right--except for all those "compelling state interests" that negate the "shall not be infringed" part) and against the right to keep and bear arms in the Emerson, Haney and Bean cases.
Gee, who would have ever thought the gun industry would retain someone who isn't squarely in their camp? I mean, it's not like they should have learned better from Robert Ricker or anything...