[blau993]

Don't get too excited about this. The jury verdict is not binding, and Judge Weinstein is the epitome of the liberal activist judge. I would not put it past him to ignore the jury entirely.

[Hugin]

I realize this is an "advisory jury" though I have never heard of such a thing before. I have heard of judges setting aside verdicts if they determined the jury did not follow the law in deciding the case. Anyway, it's still a win IMHO if not the final word. I agree with 45Auto that if the judge overrides the jury and finds for the NAALCP the appeals court will overturn it. Probably they would even if the jury had ruled for the plaintiffs, but I would guess the judge would need a much more compelling case to do so now that the jury has found for the defendants. I don't know this judge, but even if he is anti-gun, no judge wants to send up a verdict that he thinks will probably be overturned on appeal. It doesn't look good on his resume. Probably especially true if he overrules the jury.