Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren has been posting about the shoddy “study” Professor Carl Bogus cited in a brief he filed in Heller, and has continued to use to support his anti-gun rights position. Professor Bogus “responded” with a “response” that ignored key flaws in the study. After pointing out what he ignored, I then wrote the following comment:
Note: I am a strongly partisan in favor of gun rights. I see nothing wrong with that. Other than the fact that I think they’re horribly wrong, I see nothing wrong “wrong” with being strongly partisan against gun rights.
But I do see something very wrong with being a dishonest partisan. And that’s why I have a problem with Professor Bogus. For example, when Professor Levinson posted his critique of Scalia’s opinion in Heller, criticizing him for ignoring “Saul Cornell’s fine book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control,” I looked up the book (yeah Dogpile), and quickly found this article on Volokh that pointed me to “St. George Tucker’s Second Amendment: Deconstructing ‘The True Palladium of Liberty’,” by Stephen P. Halbrook, and article that appeared to pretty conclusively prove that Saul Cornell’s book was anything but “fine”. So I read the article, and wrote up a post criticizing Professor Levinson for supporting such a pathetic book, here.
However, before I published my post, I did another web search, looking for commentary on Stephen P. Halbrook’s article. I found several posts quoting it favorably, and nothing on the web saying that he had misused his sources. So I posted my comments.
Now, if I had found anything potentially credible that had trashed Halbrook’s article, I would have either read it, and judged for myself, or I would have refrained from commenting. Because my credibility matters, far more than any one cheap shot I might be able to take at those who disagree with me.
I find it sad that Professor Bogus has so little concern for his own credibility.