Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


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
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
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
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
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).

1 Comment | Leave a comment

RKV | January 12, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment