Of Arms and the Law
Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home
Get an autographed copy of our Heller brief! $7.99 incl. S&H
Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography

ISOcover150x200sm.jpg

I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.


2nd Amendment Discussions
1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
The BitchGirls
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Visitors since April 1, 2005: Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 3.15
Site Design by Sekimori

« Alan Gottlieb op-ed | Main | This is just going too far... »

Update on Lott suit

Posted by David Hardy · 12 January 2007 03:40 PM

Concurring Opinions has an update on John Lott's lawsuit against the author of "Freakonomics." The judge dismissed the claim as to the statement in the book that Lott's work could not be replicated -- finding that the average reader might think that merely meant that others differed with his conclusions -- but kept in a claim that Lott had been defamed by an email that claimed he had "bought" an issue of Journal of Law and Economics and only put in studies that supported his results.

(Via the Volokh Conspiracy).

Comments

The judge has made a factual error. Saying that Lott's work could not be repeated has a specific, scientific meaning - that is, his experiment could not be repeated with similar results. Its general meaning is irrelevant given that the subject is the accuracy of Lott's statistical analysis.

Posted by: RKV at January 12, 2007 04:48 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)