DC ordered to pay $1 million dollars over gun case

cybrsage · Dec 29, 2011

The District of Columbia has been ordered to pay more than $1 million in attorneys' fees as a result of a historic gun case that was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dick Heller sued the city in 2003 over its ban on handgun ownership and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ban in June 2008, saying it violated the Second Amendment.
A federal judge on Thursday issued an opinion awarding Heller's attorneys $1,137,072.27 in fees and expenses. The attorneys had argued they should be awarded $3.1 million. Attorneys for the city said the figure should be closer to $840,000.
A spokesman for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General said city lawyers were studying the opinion. A telephone message left for Heller's lead lawyer, Alan Gura, wasn't immediately returned. The judge's opinion awards Gura approximately $662,000 for more than 1,500 hours of work on the case, paying him at a rate of $420 per hour. Five other members of Heller's team are also compensated.
After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2008, the city rewrote its gun laws and for the first time in more than 30 years permitted handgun ownership. The new laws, however, include numerous registration requirements.
Those requirements prompted Heller to sue again, saying that the new laws are too restrictive. That case is still pending, with a federal appeals court ruling in October that the city must provide evidence justifying what it called "novel" handgun registration requirements including vision tests. The city is considering changes to the law that, if implemented, could impact the case.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...toric-gun-case/?test=latestnews#ixzz1i13vrfAd

Don't want to pay a lot of money due to having unconstitutional laws? There is a very easy way to do it...

spidey07 · Dec 29, 2011

Good news indeed. And gura has been awesome for a while now and why my donations go to second amendment foundation. SAF

Throckmorton · Dec 29, 2011

$420 per hour? WOW

cybrsage · Dec 29, 2011

Yeah, I think it is obnoxiously high...but the city should have known better than to fight for an obviously unconstitutional law.

Rainsford · Dec 29, 2011

While gun folks clearly view this award as a victory, I think it does a pretty good job of highlighting the problems with our justice system at the moment. Not only is that a ridiculously large amount of money, but it's entirely possible that the guy who sued the city could have ended up paying the entire bill himself. For an issue like the 2nd amendment, where there is an incredibly well funded lobby, it's less of an issue. When it's a less popular issue, justice sort of seems out of reach for the average person.

On the other hand, it's a pretty good argument to donate to the ACLU, NRA, EFF, whoever it is that supports what you believe in.

Rainsford · Dec 29, 2011

cybrsage said:
Yeah, I think it is obnoxiously high...but the city should have known better than to fight for an obviously unconstitutional law.

Maybe they figured that DC residents being denied the right to be federally represented served as precedent to deny other rights

cybrsage · Dec 29, 2011

Rainsford said:
Maybe they figured that DC residents being denied the right to be federally represented served as precedent to deny other rights

There is no denial of rights in the fed...only states get that. The Constitution is pretty clear about it.

MotF Bane · Dec 29, 2011

Maybe the losers of court cases should be paying legal fees for the other party more often...

Rainsford · Dec 29, 2011

MotF Bane said:
Maybe the losers of court cases should be paying legal fees for the other party more often...

I think that's not a very good idea. It should be an option in some situations, but should be left entirely up to the discretion of the court, IMO. Making it TOO common would do too much to discourage lawsuits where one party is much richer than the other, since a loss with legal fees being awarded would be financially disastrous for one party and not the other.

Rainsford · Dec 29, 2011

cybrsage said:
There is no denial of rights in the fed...only states get that. The Constitution is pretty clear about it.

I was mostly being a wiseass

I'm not a lawyer, but I know what makes sense from a logical standpoint. And it seems to me that people are depressingly selective when it comes to rights that they get their panties in a bunch about...which I should say goes for both sides, incidentally.

IMO, people in DC should be able to own guns...and get federal representation. At least this ruling gets 'em halfway.

EagleKeeper · Dec 29, 2011

DC was never intended on be a livable city. Just a Federal district.

Problem is Va was able to get the good stuff back.

MD has to get the bad stuff with the good stuff. And they already have enough bad stuff East of the Anacosta.

Rainsford · Dec 29, 2011

EagleKeeper said:
DC was never intended on be a livable city. Just a Federal district.

Problem is Va was able to get the good stuff back.

MD has to get the bad stuff with the good stuff. And they already have enough bad stuff East of the Anacosta.

Yeah, it was a good idea that's sort of got away from everyone. I like the idea of giving the rest back to MD, like VA got its part back. But I'm not sure anyone really wants MD to have the national capitol.

lothar · Dec 30, 2011

Rainsford said:
I think that's not a very good idea. It should be an option in some situations, but should be left entirely up to the discretion of the court, IMO. Making it TOO common would do too much to discourage lawsuits where one party is much richer than the other, since a loss with legal fees being awarded would be financially disastrous for one party and not the other.

What you propose is also not really a good idea.
The big corporations and other rich parties would only settle because fighting to save a few pennies is not worth their time, and they end up paying a few and not admitting guilt for anything.
Never try to pickup pennies in front of a steamroller.

I agree with MotF Bane's idea more.
If you lose, pay the court cost. It's no different from a candidate losing a recount vote and having to pay for it's cost.

Wreckem · Dec 30, 2011

Rainsford said:
I think that's not a very good idea. It should be an option in some situations, but should be left entirely up to the discretion of the court, IMO. Making it TOO common would do too much to discourage lawsuits where one party is much richer than the other, since a loss with legal fees being awarded would be financially disastrous for one party and not the other.

With constitutional claims like this, the plaintiffs lawyers are always awarded fees paid for by the infringing party if the plaintiffs win(thats in addition to any money awarded to the actual plaintiff(s). If the plaintiffs lose, the lawyers end up taking a loss.

Also, some states have statutes that require plaintiffs to pay if they don't get past summary judgement.

Wreckem · Dec 30, 2011

ichy · Dec 30, 2011

$420/hour is too high.

dphantom · Dec 30, 2011

cybrsage said:
Yeah, I think it is obnoxiously high...but the city should have known better than to fight for an obviously unconstitutional law.

Not really. A really good attorney will run from 250-500/hour. And you will be glad you paid it over a 150/hour person.

BladeVenom · Dec 30, 2011

Remember when Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother was billing up to $7,000 per hour in the Tobacco lawsuits?

the DRIZZLE · Dec 30, 2011

ichy said:
$420/hour is too high.

The lead lawyer was making that, not all the lawyers on the case.

spidey07 · Dec 30, 2011

ichy said:
$420/hour is too high.

Obviously it isn't otherwise he'd be out of business without people willing to pay that.

JeffreyLebowski · Dec 30, 2011

ichy said:
$420/hour is too high.

$420/hr will buy a lot of 420 to get high with. lol

It seems though that this case has caused liberals to back peddle on gun control issues.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rist-arrested-with-gun-at-11/?test=latestnews
A NYC Dem is pushing to have the DA drop weapons charges on a tourist.
Either they're worried about court costs, or it's a relative.

cybrsage · Dec 31, 2011

dphantom said:
Not really. A really good attorney will run from 250-500/hour. And you will be glad you paid it over a 150/hour person.

What I mean is, that much money is too high all the time...not just in this case.

cybrsage · Dec 31, 2011

Rainsford said:
I was mostly being a wiseass I'm not a lawyer, but I know what makes sense from a logical standpoint. And it seems to me that people are depressingly selective when it comes to rights that they get their panties in a bunch about...which I should say goes for both sides, incidentally.

IMO, people in DC should be able to own guns...and get federal representation. At least this ruling gets 'em halfway.

We have a dilema, one not forseen by the founders. They did not give Congressional power to DC on purpose, since they were afraid the Congressmen from DC would overpower everyone else. As the seat of government, they would be too strong - since they control the land everyone in government works on and owns a residence in. The President would be represented in Congress by them, etc.

They never expected so many people to willingly live in an area where they had no Congressional representation.

Tough thing...trying to balance the abuse with representation...

Throckmorton · Dec 31, 2011

spidey07 said:
Obviously it isn't otherwise he'd be out of business without people willing to pay that.

You mean without the government being ordered to pay $420/hr...

DC ordered to pay $1 million dollars over gun case

Lifer

No Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

No Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Platinum Member

No Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer