Judge Benitez Hammers Professor Donahue in Miller v Becerra

 

John J. Donohue III is a lawyer and economist who has published numerous papers, many of them statistical studies about guns and crime. He is a professor at Stanford Law School. Some of his prominent papers dispute the findings of John Lott, who found an increase in the issuance of carry permits led to a decrease in homicides.

Professor Donohue's findings have also been disputed. His analysis tends to focus on state level statistics while John Lott's analysis uses finer-grained county level statistics.

Professor Donohue submitted a supplemental declaration to the court in support of Becerra and the State of California. Unlike his articles about concealed carry, there are no esoteric mathematics involving state level synthetic controls. Judge Benitez carefully considers professor Donohue's declaration. He finds it has little to do with the California ban on "assault weapons. From Miller v Becerra, page 69:

John J. Donohue is a professor of law. His supplemental declaration is not particularly helpful. For example, professor Donohue describes a 2018 medical study published on the Jama Network Open about 511 gunshot victims in Boston. He opines that study "applies directly to bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  Yet the study noted that only one of the 511 victims studied was shot with a rifle caliber round (7.62 x 39 mm.) Why the study applies directly to bans on "assault weapons," as professor Donohue opines, is not at all obvious. Handgun wounds were the main point of the study. Professor Donohue also opines that the dangers of weapons like the AR-15 will outpace any legitimate crime-reducing benefit the firearms provide, citing the 2017 Sutherland Springs Baptist Church shooting. He picked an ironic example. a neighbor, Stephen Willeford, stopped the mass shooter in that tragedy with four shots from his own AR-15.

Professor Donohue previously commented on the lawful-to-own Ruger Mini-14 rifle wich is similar to the banned rifles. He offered that the Mini-14's current legality is because the firearm restrictions are to be increased "incrementally." He concludes with abject conjecture imagining the January 6, 2021 Capitol rally would have turned out like the Kent State University shootings, but for the District of Columbia's prohibition on "assault weapons". Professor Donohue's opinions are entitled to no weight.

Judge Benitez shows professor Donohue as pushing a number of gunshot victims (shot almost entirely with handguns) as an emotional ploy. Emotional ploys are used when you do not have a logical argument. It is also a push for interest balancing, forbidden in the Heller and Bruen Supreme Court cases. The information which shows professor Donohue  did not finding the exception for the Mini-14 rifle relevant, because the gun banners had simply not got around to banning it yet is highly revealing. It exposes the "slippery slope" argument as valid.  It shows at least one prominent professor and lawyer conspicuously referenced by those who oppose a strong Second Amendment, views gun restrictions as best done "incrementally". It is reminiscent of the overused boiling frog analogy. The weird hypothetical about the January 6th Capitol Rally and Kent State is particularly strange. Kent State happened in 1970. There were no privately owned firearms involved. The only "assault weapons" involved would have been owned by the U.S. government.  Judge Benitez makes the obvious and clear judgement.

Professor Donohue's opinions are entitled to no weight. 

With Judge Benitez, those pushing for a disarmed population have found a jurist who is  knowledgeable about firearms and firearms history, who rigorously does his homework and applies the law as the Constitution and the Supreme Court require.

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

 

 

 

©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch