2nd Amendment LIVES!

[Jim Richards]

Semi-autos are "machine guns," according to our mayor. LOL. It's nice to know the seat of our government is located in a place where the US Constitution is so fastidiously honored.

[red-beard]

Is a bicycle a motorized vehicle?

Just because you say something is something, doesn't mean it is.

[Jim Richards]

The bill for Heller: $3.5 million
Monday, August 25th, 2008 5:06 pm
Lyle Denniston


Lawyers who won the historic Second Amendment gun rights case in the Supreme Court — District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) — on Monday asked a federal judge to award them more than $3.5 million for attorneys’ fees, plus $13,215.30 for expenses and court costs. In a motion and memorandum filed with U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the attorneys said that they had achieved “one of the most profound and important victories available under our system of justice.”

Their argument also suggested that this was a David vs. Goliath clash, with the attorneys on their far side far outnumbered in lawyers, legal resources and government funding.

Their motion said the lawyers expect that the District of Columbia government will oppose their fee and expenses request, but added that they had not yet received a formal response.

Looking back at the case, the memorandum remarked: “Throughout it all, [the challengers’] legal team consisted primarily of the three undersigned attorneys, with occasional support from a small handful of others, all working on a pro bono basis.” The three are Alexandria attorneys Alan Gura and Clark M. Neily III, plus Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, “who also personally bore all the expenses of the litigation,” according to the document.

The filing said that Gura had asked for “an exiguous payment” [dictionary definition: excessively scanty] to get involved, but “never saw this as anything other than a pro bono case.” He asked that the Court keep confidential the details of that arrangement, but said the details would be disclosed if the Court required it. The last payment under that deal was received in mid-2003, the document said. The case was filed originally in District Court in February 2003.

The memorandum said that, in addition to a base amount on hourly rates, a multiplier had been added because this was an “exceptional case.” It added: “If this is not an ‘exceptional case’ warranting an enhancement multiplier, we are at a loss to describe what case would qualify.”

The resulting fee claim was based, for example, on an hourly rate for Gura of $557 per hour, times a 2.0 enhancement for 1,661 hours, resulting in a claim for $1,850,354, and an hourly rate of the same size for Neily times the same enhancement for 808.3 hours, resulting in $900,446.20. Levy’s claim was for $663,498.40. Overall, the claim for seven attorneys’ time totaled $3,559,097.20.

Among the expenses and costs claim totaling $13,215.30, the largest sums were for payments to attorneys Stephen Halbrook, a Fairfax, Va., attorney who has long been associated with court cases over Second Amendment rights ($3,250), and Don Kates ($4,400).

The challengers to District of Columbia gun laws — including a flat ban on private possession of pistols in the home or anywhere other than a business — lost in District Court, but won in the D.C. Circuit and in the Supreme Court. The Justices’ 5-4 decision, announced on June 26, the final day of the last Term, declared for the first time in history that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a functioning gun for use in self-defense in the home.

In the Supreme Court, the local gun ban was challenged by a government security guard who lives in Washington, Dick Anthony Heller. After the Court ruled, and the D.C. government set up a new regime of licensing of pistols, Heller filed a new lawsuit in federal court challenging the new approach as too restrictive. (He has since had his pistol registered under the new regulations.) Attorney Halbrook is the lead counsel in that case.

Two other District residents joined in the lawsuit (Heller, et al., v. District of Columbia, et al., District Court docket 08-1289), now pending before District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. The District government’s response to the lawsuit is now due on Thursday of this week.

[legion]

This article doesn't make sense to me. Who is it they are requesting pay their fees?

[Jim Richards]

It believe the attorneys that won Heller want the federal court in the District of Columbia to award them these fees. That means the District of Columbia government will have to pay. So, my tax dollars will go towards paying for the Heller case. Thanks DC for holding out so long.

[legion]

From a logical standpoint, I don't see how you can take on a case pro-bono, and then when you win, ask the losing side to pay you.

I thought the whole point of pro-bono was to establish yourself in an area of litigation so that you could command an outrageous fee on the next case. Gura, Neily, and Levy are clearly the high-dollar experts in 2nd Amendement litigation, and I expect them to be paid hansomly by the NRA, ISRA, and other benefactors when they take on Chicago.

[Jim Richards]

Dunno. We'll see how this goes...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm hoping someone in CA sues the state soon to overturn the ridiculous restrictions we have here also.

I can dream, can't I?

[legion]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I'm hoping someone in CA sues the state soon to overturn the ridiculous restrictions we have here also.

I can dream, can't I?

I truly believe that is second on the NRA's list after handgun bans.

[Rick Lee]

I think CA is SOL. They have no outright handgun ban, just a lot of stupid restrictions that have no effect on criminals and just make it hard for law-abiding citizens. As wrong as it is, I think these restrictions will be found to pass Const. muster.

The real way to change the laws in CA is for all FFL's and gun makers to refuse to do business with any CA state or police agencies. Some already do this, but if they all did it, CA would be forced to repeal a lot of their BS gun laws. I believe Barrett refuses to sell their .50 cal. rifles to CA police agencies as an act of solidarity with CA gunowners.

[legion]

I guess the way I see it is the NRA's priorities are these (in this order):

1) Get bans specifically mentioned in Heller thrown out.
2) Test the limits of Heller and see what other bans/restrictions can be lifted.
3) Get castle doctrine passed in every state.
4) Standardize/expand CCW.

[911boost]

Barrett does refuse to sell to CA law enforcement agencies. They mention it in their advertising.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

That's not to say L.E. agencies out here don't get their weapons. I'm pretty certain LBPD snipers use Barrett .50 cals (among other hardware). I got to witness one in action a couple years ago during a standoff between a nutcase and police a few buildings down from me. Cops eventually tossed a cell phone through a window and when the perp (who was holding his estranged girlfriend hostage) went for it, a sniper blew his head apart with a Barrett .50 from across the street. No doubt whatsoever what the weapon was - a .50 has a pretty distinct sound.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

It believe the attorneys that won Heller want the federal court in the District of Columbia to award them these fees. That means the District of Columbia government will have to pay. So, my tax dollars will go towards paying for the Heller case. Thanks DC for holding out so long.

pretty much standard operating procedure. the ACLU does it every time they win a case. i know it sucks. but it will make things easier the next time gun owners need to ***** slap a city.