I read the retraction (Volokh has a link) and was struck by this paragraph:

That’s right, an anti-gunner fessed up and admitted that up to 3/4ths of American Colonists owned guns.

He goes on to say how this is important because it directly impacts our interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual, versus a state, right.  On the one hand, I’m glad there is a direct path to arguing the Second Amendment as an individual right.  On the other hand, I think it;s obvious it always was an individual right, since the entire Bill of Rights deals with individual rights, and it’s commonly held in law that when a phrase is defined in a contract or document, it holds that definition unless specifically and explicitly altered.  “The people” is always defined in the first ten Amendments as the individuals that make up the citizenry.  Given this, the Second Amendment can ONLY apply to Thar rights of an individual.

It seems blatantly obvious to me, and I’m not even a lawyer *or* a Constitutional scholar.

Less

Because NRA refused to say anything during the first two weeks of
rifle snipings, the anti-gun crowd had an open playing field —-
running with a new technology that sounds good, and very few people
know anything about.

The public has been receiving an almost diluted barrage of claims
that this is the greatest technology since sliced bread —- one
able to quickly catch the next sniper.  Which is unadulterated
nonsense.  Even if Sarah Brady did say it.

I would like to think all the talk about keeping records on rifles
—or banning scoped, accurate rifles -— would have awakened hunters
before the Nov. 5 vote.  But based on conversations during two
days at this weekend’s Roanoke, Va., gun show, I don’t think so.

I’ve been sending reporter acquaintances, and others, variants of
the following letter.  I urge you to use this same informational
argument in letters to editors to your local editor, or comments to
local talk show hosts.  Put the entire thing over your name if you
wish.

Remember that every Congressman reads home town newspapers —- not
for the stale front page news, but for the Letters to Editors. 
That’s what tells him what the folks back home are thinking.

Letters to Capitol Hill are important.  But if you want your
Congressman to read your letter, get it published in the local
press.

===========

Dear ________,

Despite politicians marvelous claims for a “ballistic fingerprint”
database of “Gun DNA,” those claims are phony. Forensic experts know
so.  Those who don’t have a vested interest in implementing such
systems have said so.

Fingerprints and Human DNA never change.  Markings on bullets (and
cases) can and do change from wear or abuse—including firing just
one dirty or deliberately dirtied bullet.

That’s one reason an Oct. 2001 study by the California DOJ Forensics
bureau rejected even a cartridge case imaging law (noting that
bullets are less reliable indicators). (See a photocopy of the study
at www.NSSF.org) Yet the agency’s political boss, California Atty.
Gen. Bill Lockyer, an anti-gun ideologue, came out in support of such
a system despite his own agency’s study.

The clearest real-world evidence that “ballistic fingerprinting” is
a farce was the 1997 testing of the gun believed to have killed
Martin Luther King.  It was test-fired 18 times under court order
and court supervision by experts.  No two bullets matched each other
-- nor the bullet that killed Dr. King!

That test was part of the 1997 King Family lawsuit, and was
intended to show that the .30-06 rifle bearing James Earl Ray’s
fingerprints was not the murder weapon.  The fact that the bullet
did not match the bullet fragments taken from Dr. King’s body gave
rise to a host of conspiracy theories.

One of the forensic examiners on the King team, retired
Connecticut Police Forensics Examiner Marshall Robinson, recently
explained to the Baltimore Sun (Oct. 15, 2002) why the successive
bullets didn’t match each other:  The barrel changed with every
shot due to the copper jacket rubbing off from the previous shot.

That constant changing is why Sen. Schumer’s “ballistic imaging”
won’t work.  Fingerpints and DNA never change; forensic marks do.

As a court-qualified “firearms expert” (there’s really no such
thing), I assure you that the bullet from one cartridge, dipped in
oil and sand, will create a totally new and different engraving
pattern on subsequent shots.  So will replacing the barrel.

Neal Knox
Firearms Coalition

Less

Another thing that jumped out at me, and I went so far as to touch upon briefly in the past, is that Emory essentially called Bellesiles a liar.  I’m not alone in this belief, apparently.

To quote the great Hank Hill..."Yep."

The second article is an opinion piece flagged as an editorial.

Good for them.  The piece ends with a line that Bellisiles ought to have tatooed on his forehead backwards, so it greets him in the mirror each morning:

Right on, Emory.  I dig your vibe, man. (Links via Instapundit)

Less

Emory published a press release with their side of the story.  I fully expect Bellesiles to have a completely different account, since his version of reality is filtered through whatever agenda he is operating under currently.

Emory has provided a link to their investigative committee’s final report (Adobe PDF), as well as Bellesiles’ response. I particularly enjoyed this passage:

“Contravened these professional norms” is academia’s way of saying “Yes, he not only kept sloppy records, he faked some of his data.”

It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Clayton Cramer has quite a few pieces on this topic, and has spent many hours debunking Bellesiles.

Less