I just heard on NPR (National Propaganda Radio) that the city of Boston, after spending $500K on the case, has dropped its suit against gun manufacturers.

[b]BEAUTIFUL![/B] [beer] Best news I've heard all day.

I see a definite trend building.


... hey, what are you doing listening to National People's Radio? You should be listening to Michael Savage! [;)]

My understanding that the main reason they gave up is one of cost (i.e. the suit's impact on the City's budget) not ideology.

Maybe I'm just cynical. Either way, a win (even if it's by the other side's forfeit) is a win.

The Mayor of Boston, "Mumbles" Menino said that they dropped the suite because of the cost of litigation, especially when the economy is bad.
I think it was because they realized it was going to be thrown out like the rest of them. The cost of the suit is a flimsy excuse. I'm sure if they thought they were going to win, they would have pursued it at any cost, counting on a win-fall if they won.

However, don't get too excited yet. Jersey City, NJ just announced that they were filling suit against S&W, Colt, Glock and ? on Tuesday, charging that the companies knowingly sell large amounts of guns to states with lax laws, knowing that they will be sent to other states for use in crimes. AND...guess who is providing legal services to the city....Sarah Brady's group!

The "cost to the city" is a BS excuse.  It was reported that it was costing the city $30K a month to keep this going.  If memory serves me correctly, a law firm agreed to represent the city "free", but would collect a percentage if the city won (much like the lawyers that sued the tobacco companies).  My feeling is that the fat mumbling mayor probably realized that the suit was going to get tossed and wanted to save face, using the economy as a reason.  He is such an ASS%&*#.