<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Disassembling Glock	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2003/12/disassembling-glock/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2003/12/disassembling-glock/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:42:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2003/12/disassembling-glock/comment-page-1/#comment-282</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=528#comment-282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Gun suits and the Dormant Commerce Clause&lt;/strong&gt;

David Hardy at Arms and the Law offers some further thoughts on how portions of today&#039;s anti-gun litigation may violate the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a topic previously broached by, among others, Dan McLaughlin and Profs. Sebok and Lytton (see...
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Gun suits and the Dormant Commerce Clause</strong></p>
<p>David Hardy at Arms and the Law offers some further thoughts on how portions of today&#8217;s anti-gun litigation may violate the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a topic previously broached by, among others, Dan McLaughlin and Profs. Sebok and Lytton (see&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2003/12/disassembling-glock/comment-page-1/#comment-281</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=528#comment-281</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Gun suits and the Dormant Commerce Clause&lt;/strong&gt;

David Hardy at Arms and the Law offers some further thoughts on how portions of today&#039;s anti-gun litigation may violate the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a topic previously broached by, among others, Dan McLaughlin and Profs. Sebok and Lytton (see...
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Gun suits and the Dormant Commerce Clause</strong></p>
<p>David Hardy at Arms and the Law offers some further thoughts on how portions of today&#8217;s anti-gun litigation may violate the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a topic previously broached by, among others, Dan McLaughlin and Profs. Sebok and Lytton (see&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Declarations and Exclusions		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2003/12/disassembling-glock/comment-page-1/#comment-280</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Declarations and Exclusions]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=528#comment-280</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Shooting Spree Update: 9th Circuit&#039;s Decision on GUn Manufacturer Liability Continues to Draw Criticism&lt;/strong&gt;

On November 20, we reported on the 9th Circuit&#039;s decision permitting a claim against gun manufacturers arising from the infamous Jewish Community Center shootings. That decision continues to inspire comment and to draw criticism. Today, Walter Olson of...
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Shooting Spree Update: 9th Circuit&#8217;s Decision on GUn Manufacturer Liability Continues to Draw Criticism</strong></p>
<p>On November 20, we reported on the 9th Circuit&#8217;s decision permitting a claim against gun manufacturers arising from the infamous Jewish Community Center shootings. That decision continues to inspire comment and to draw criticism. Today, Walter Olson of&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
