The Useless Vote Tomorrow in SF on banning guns

"[The gun ban] clearly will be thrown out," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on Friday, adding that he planned to vote for the measure anyway to show his opposition to the proliferation of handguns. "It's so overtly pre-empted. I'm having a difficult time with it, and that's my one caveat. ... It's really a public opinion poll at the end of the day.''

"Gun classes offer options to domestic abuse victims"

Until Christmas Eve 1996, she had never contemplated carrying a gun.

Then her husband beat her.

The woman, of Salt Lake City, promptly got a divorce and a protective order - and a 9mm Glock pistol.

"I was always terrified of guns. But my fear of my ex-husband became far greater than my fear of guns. I saw what he was capable of," said the woman.

The Tribune is not identifying the woman because her ex-husband has not been charged with any crime.
She said protective orders alone are not enough to protect her and others like her. A piece of paper won't save them from an abuser hurtling toward them with a fist or a weapon.

So they're taking up arms. And Clark Aposhian, manager of Totally Awesome Guns and Range in Kearns, is helping them do it.

The certified firearms instructor offers a five-hour course on most Saturdays. It is required to receive a Utah concealed weapons permit. The class is $75 a person, but for women or men with a valid protective order, it's free. . . .

A big wind up but not much of a delivery: Response to Op-ed on Alito Nomination

Todd Zywicki had a nice post on my recent op-ed discussing whether Alito is an extremist

Todd goes on to note that Franks Cross criticizes my piece:
Professor Frank Cross challenges Lott's interpretation of Choi and Gulati in the Comments:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this review by John Lott is quite misleading. Under Choi & Gulati's citation-based measure of judicial quality, Alito comes out very poorly, well down in the bottom half of all circuit court judges. That was their primary measure, and Lott doesn't mention it. Now, I've got a forthcoming paper that argues that this measure is an unreliable one and Alito suffers not for lack of quality but because it is a minimalist. But it's still misleading to cite a couple of categories where he does well but ignore their leading category, where he did quite poorly.

And independence in their study doesn't mean judicial independence, or anything like it. His high score here probably just means that 3rd Circuit Republicans are pretty liberal, as has been noted on this blog, so he is more likely to disagree with them and write a conservative opinion.

Personally though, after much back and forth between myself and Mr. Cross, Cross's discussion ends with more of a wimper than a bang:

. . . Perhaps I should give some context. I have the Choi &Gulati data and have analyzed it in various ways, as well as reading all the critics that I have found. I am famiiar the the findings and their validity. Because this is an area in which I research, I have fielded numerous inquiries about the Alito nomination. I have scrupulously avoided discussing the Choi &Gulati results because (a) I felt I could not do so honestly without addressing Alito's low quality rating in the process and (b) I think that rating is unfair to Alito for other reasons I have been researching. But I thought the full explanation was beyond what the press could reasonably offer in an article.

In short, I declined to make a post such as yours, because I believed it would be misleading to do so. This all happened before your post. Having made that conclusion for myself, I applied it to your post. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

My response is as follows:

. . . I haven't read your research, though I would be interested in doing so if you could email a copy (I would appreciate it). What I conclude from your last comments is that you were not taking issue with me inaccurately reporting what Choi and Gulati wrote, but your research has found that there were significant problems with their research and that without noting those problems it is wrong to cite the Choi and Gulati findings. Since I don't know your critique, I can't really comment on the last point other than to say I am very happy to look at your work.

I will look forward to reading his research when he sends it to me. I couldn't find it on SSRN. Possibly he has some strong critiques of Choi and Gulati, but despite the long discussion presented he never explicitly mentions what his objection is to Choi and Gulati's quality measures based upon citations and invocations (the later is when the name of a judge is mentioned in citing his opinion). I will reserve judgment until I have it to read, which hopefully will be very soon.

Are New York City Crime Numbers Being Falsely Reported?

It's been a year now since an extraordinary event occurred in local police annals: The heads of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and the Sergeants Benevolent Association charged publicly that the police department had cooked the books on crime statistics. Maybe you missed the news about the outcry that followed—the hasty audits, the City Council investigations, the criminal probes, the corruption commission hearings. But if you've missed all that, it's not your fault: There hasn't been any outcry. No comptroller audits. No City Council investigation. Nothing to date from the city's Commission to Combat Police Corruption. . . .

The basic complaint is that police commanders have forced cops to turn crimes that once would have been reported as felony assaults and grand larcenies into lesser offenses. The goal, accordingly, is to drive down the number of offenses included in a closely watched "index" of seven major crimes. . . .

"So how do you fake a crime decrease? It's pretty simple. Don't file reports, misclassify crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, undervalue the property lost to crime so it's not a felony, and report a series of crimes as a single event. A particularly insidious way to fudge the numbers is to make it difficult or impossible for people to report crimes—in other words, make the victims feel like criminals so they walk away just to spare themselves further pain and suffering." . . .

Thanks very much to Jason Morin for sending this to me.

Wisconsin holds hearings on Right-to-carry law

Only four states ban people being able to carry concealed weapons. One vote made the difference last time where a previous sponsor changed his position under pressure from the governor, and a similarly close vote will likely take place this time.

Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, the bill's other main author, choked up as he told the committees someone attacked him with a crowbar as he tried to open his store one day.

"Maybe he wouldn't have if he thought I was carrying a concealed weapon," Gunderson said. Zien, sitting next to him, patted him on the back.

Gunderson said 46 other states currently allow residents to carry concealed weapons. He said Wisconsin's bill is needed to comply with a 2003 state Supreme Court ruling, which found Wisconsin's 133-year-old ban on hidden weapons conflicts with a 1998 amendment to the state constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

83 year old man defends himself, had been carrying a gun since a previous attack

Youngstown, Ohio, Tuesday, November 1

Walter Swita used a German Luger 9 mm pistol he brought home from World War II to shoot an intruder he suspects robbed him a few weeks ago.

The intruder, Benjamin Brooks, 44, of East Philadelphia Avenue, died Sunday at St. Elizabeth Health Center. Swita shot him in the head and chest around 10:30 p.m. Friday.

Brooks, whose record included robbery and breaking and entering, lived around the corner from Swita.. . .

The elderly man's 80-year-old two-story house is in the middle of a commercial district that features bars, eateries and other businesses. As a safety precaution, he's considering cutting back or removing a large bush that obscures his front porch.
"I think he's the one who attacked me about six weeks ago in the back yard," Swita said of Brooks. "He smashed me hard in the face and when I fell down he looked through my wallet and took $60."

Swita said he started carrying his German Luger after the attack, not sure whether the vintage pistol would even fire. He said he served in General George Patton's 3rd Army but didn't shoot at anyone. He repaired tanks and Jeeps. After the first robbery, Swita, who lives alone, began parking across the street when he returned home, not in his rear yard driveway. He'd hide the pistol against his leg until he was safe inside.

People not protecting themselves is viewed as good news by gun control advocates

I guess that I can believe that this is a real cost of liberals controling public schooling:

The survey's statistics are not all bleak. It appears that the violence prevention initiatives available to youth are working. America's teens are 10% less likely (19.8%) than in 2004 (29.8%) to use a gun for protection if they had access to a handgun.

"These findings show why we must continue to make violence prevention programs a regular part of our experience - when we know better, we do better,"

Thanks to Jason Morin for sending this to me.

New op-ed on Alito's nomination

Yesterday Bloomberg published an op-ed of mine on Alito's nomination: "Alito Will Be Hard to Portray as an Extremist." Erwin Chemerinsky wrote the counterpoint. Hopefully, I will be allowed to link to it soon.

My piece noted:Whether it is surveys of lawyers who have practiced before him, academic studies of judicial political independence, his rating by the American Bar Association, or any reading of his opinions, Alito has been a fair and thoughtful judge. No one is going to seriously question his legal background. It's even hard to find any objective measure that would show him to be unqualified or even controversial.

Few people having RTC permits revoked in Ohio

From April 2004 to September 2005, 63,597 standard licenses, and 119 temporary emergency licenses were issued to Ohio residents. On average, Ohio sheriffs are issuing approximately 118 concealed handgun licenses to law-abiding citizens per day.

Ohio CHL-holders have proven to be far more law-abiding than skeptics had predicted they would be. Only 94 CHLs (0.14%), have been revoked in the first eighteen months for any reason, including the passing away of some licenseholders. Just 272 CHLs (0.42%), were suspended for any reason, and many of those are often reinstated later. . . .

Note that since 94 includes those who have died and given that 70,098 have permits, it is quite possible that virtually all the revocations were for people who died.

There are some links to the newest data from Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro.

Talk Tomorrow

I will be giving a talk tomorrow at SUNY Binghamton. The talk is in the late afternoon in the economics department, and I will be talking about the abortion and crime paper that I have.

ABC-Washington Post Poll on Alito

Alito begins the confirmation process with the support of 49 percent of the public, while 30 percent currently say he should not be confirmed, the poll found. One in four Americans -- 24 percent -- did not yet know enough about him to make a judgment. . . .

The survey also suggests that the Alito nomination may quickly emerge as one of the most divisive partisan and ideological battles of the Bush presidency. Currently, 73 percent of all Republicans say he should be confirmed, compared to 33 percent of all Democrats. Six in 10 political conservatives support Alito, compared to slightly more than a third of all liberals and about half of all moderates. Still, many on both sides of the partisan and ideological divide say they have yet to make up their minds about Alito.

Early attempts by Alito's opponents to cast him as too conservative have yet to convince most Americans, the poll found. More than four in 10 -- 44 percent -- said his views appear "about right." Three in 10 said Alito was more conservative than they would have liked, while 8 percent said they would have preferred someone further to the right. . . .

Concealed handgun permit holder stops robbery

Reno, Nevada, Oct. 31, 2005

. . . Reno police say a 38-year-old man was washing his car at a car wash on Booth Street around 11:00 PM when he was approached by two men, one carrying a small, wooden bat.

Authorities say the two suspects attempted to rob the man, but the victim was armed with a hand gun and shot one of the robbers.

Police were able to locate the suspects at the hospital after one of the men showed up to be treated for a non-life threatening gunshot wound.

The un-injured suspect, 18-year-old Luis Alfredo Aguirre, was charged with attempted armed robbery.

Police say the victim has a current concealed weapon permit.

Talk Tomorrow

I will be giving a talk tomorrow at SUNY Binghamton. The talk is in the late afternoon in the economics department, and I will be talking about the abortion and crime paper that I have.

Very depressing story: Blacks doing outrageous racial attacks against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele

This is outrageous. You should read the entire story. The Democrat party of Maryland should have stopped this immediately.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."
During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.
In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark.
"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial." . . .

"Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortions and Female Mental Health"

My friend Jonathan Klick has a new research paper finding the following:

Proponents of laws requiring a waiting period before a woman can receive an abortion argue that these cooling off periods protect against rash decisions on the part of women in the event of unplanned pregnancies. Opponents claim, at best, waiting periods have no effect on decision-making and, at worst, they subject women to additional mental anguish and stress. In this article, I examine these competing claims using adult female suicide rates at the state level as a proxy for mental health. Panel data analyses suggest that the adoption of mandatory waiting periods reduce suicide rates by about 10 percent, and this effect is statistically significant. The result is robust to various attempts to control for unobservable heterogeneity and simultaneity.

Clayton Cramer also has a discussion of this.

Possible reasons for Alito's nomination over Luttig

I think that there are a couple possible reasons that Alito got the nod over Luttig.

1) It may seem trivial (especially given how conservative Luttig is), but the fact that Alito has the nickname "Scalito" just makes it appear that much clearer to everyone that Bush was honoring his pledge to appoint someone like Scalia.
2) Arlen Specter has known Alito "for two decades, ever since Mr. Alito was appointed to become U.S. Attorney in neighboring New Jersey. Mr. Specter privately told the White House that he thought he could be confirmed. Yesterday, he went out of his way to paint Judge Alito as a reasonable nominee who could win support from moderates in a news conference with reporters." (John Fund, OpinionJournals Political Diary)

The Hill: "Dems hint at filibuster"

Senate Democrats appeared to lay the groundwork yesterday for a possible filibuster of Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for an intense partisan showdown that could culminate with the so-called “nuclear option.”

“Nothing is on the table, and nothing is off the table,” Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said within hours of President Bush’s announcement that he had picked Alito to replace Harriet Miers. Miers’s nomination to the high court was withdrawn last week amid heavy criticism from conservative Republicans who feared she would not be sufficiently loyal to their orthodoxy.

Though Democrats carefully avoided using the term “filibuster” yesterday, many of them criticized Bush for picking Alito, a conservative stalwart.

“I am concerned that the nomination may be a needlessly provocative nomination,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). “Instead of uniting the country, the president chose to reward one faction of his party.” . . .