Both sides file appeals over fee award in DC gun case

Let's look at the talent DC had arguing its side of the case. Here are the three outside legal firms hired.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP



Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP



Covington & Burling LLP



We are not talking about some second-rate ambulance chasers from Chcago. These are three of the largest and oldest frims in the nation. D.C. Attorney General Robert J. Spagnoletti also hired Todd Kim as the District’s first and only, Solicitor General. Mr. Kim was hired specifically to argue this case. Prior to becoming Solicitor General, Mr. Kim was an appellate attorney for the US Department of Justice. He is graduate of Harvard Law School.



The District is whining about getting whipped. Despite the virtual army of very expensive legal talent, resources, research staff and tax payer funding the District lost. Kaplan said Gura’s team did not build the case from scratch, relying instead on what he called decades of scholarly literature on the Second Amendment. Is the District's spokesman claiming that their position was so without merit that any second rate law firm would have kicked their ignorant asses? Is he admitting the District's Mayor and attorneys were too stupid or to obstinate to read the same scholarly literature on the Second Amendment and realize their position was indefensible?

But of course, the District has a vested interest in reducing the amount they pay the Plaintiff's legal team. They still have the bills they owe to that crew of thousand dollar an hour law firms, every billable minute, and the six figure salary of their Solicitor General to pay. They can't plead with a judge to reduce those.

Gura and his team deserve compensation no less than that of the law firms arrayed against them.

Their plea that the fees must be paid from taxpayer funds so ... paying Gura & Possesky a smaller fee would be better for the DC tax payers.

Nice, that they think about that after they pissed away millions on their own high end hired gun losers and in house staff, fighting what they knew was a long shot at best, they are suddenly very concerned about the taxpayers when the bill comes due.

Then maybe you should have amended your shitty gun ban and negotiated on it, instead of taking it all the way to SCOTUS!

Hell, even Helmke and the Brady bunch knew they were screwed from the start and tried to talk Fenty out of it.

....and make part of the settlement that they get no future work from the city for 100 years. See them change their tune.

DC hiring Gura for anything. Why didn't DC use their solicitor general instead hiring corporate law firms?

.

Clearly you are not a DC citizen or taxpayer. Anything paid comes from the DC general fund which is funded entirely by DC taxpayers.

DC citizens long ago supported our elected officials position.

By the way, not one single gun dealer is independently operating a gun store on private property in DC. So much for demand.

the army of corporate lawyers the city hired. I think it is a safe bet their combined fees is far more than what is being sued for.

Well, its a good thing the citizens and taxpayers have nothing better to spend their money on than to pay lawyers in cases that the city lost as being judged as unconstitutional. No I don't live in the District. What's that got to do with anything?

As far as you second statement, it is strange that the citizens support the unconstitutional laws enacted by their elected officials. How hypocritical. I keep hearing on how special the District is and there they were, with an unconstitutional law prohibiting gun ownership.

Yep, you are correct on the single gun dealer in DC, that would be Mr Sykes, whose "gun dealership" is located in the same building as the police and DMV. As far as being a dealer or having an actual shop, it is impossible to do so in DC, because of the requirements of the law.

There is a thread on the process required to obtain a gun in DC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117210722#post9

The hypocrisy is the notion you and your government somehow think you know what the rights of DC citizens should be, which apparently don't include representation in your government .....but heh, thanks for ramming your gun agenda down our throats without our consent while completely ignoring the fact we are taxed without representation.

No.....it's tyrannical.

You seem to forget who it's supposed to represent and whom it was written for.

You do not have our consent.

....if it doesn't provide for self government.

Do you even know why the American revolution was fought?

Now you have the start of your 2nd amendment rights back thanks to Mr. Heller, a DC resident with a substantially different view of the constitution than yours, and his friend Mr. Gura.

A little advice ... next time try not to elect such dumb asses to piss away your tax money for you on a losing cause. You might have more to apply to schools, libraries, fire stations and such.

We're still trying to fix that here in Chicago too, so don't feel too bad.

.....because not being a 'dumb ass' is a pre-requisite to running for elected office.....in YOUR Congress.

You are right as to whose tax money it is (hint-it wasn't yours) and it was all well spent in accord with the wishes of OUR elected officials.

I'll leave you to invoke YOUR constitution with YOUR elected officials none of which has anything to do with guns in DC.

Mr. Heller had to move from Florida back to DC all to assert his 'gun rights' were violated. LOL.

He was gainfully employed (protecting the "powers that be" with a handgun issued to him) and residing in DC. I seriously doubt that he moved to DC for that purpose.

I'll let you google who he was 'employed' by and research when and why he moved back to DC.

Would you argue that Miranda v. Arizona is invalid because Ernesto Arturo Miranda was, frankly, a lowlife?

...was a low life.

Your words..not mine

You make the claim, you back it up. For what it is worth, he was a private security guard at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judicial Center.
Is there a valid point to make?

...sort by date.

As a Democrat, do you even care one iota that DC citizens pay federal taxes and have no voting representation in Congress?

Until you do, please don't lecture me on the gun rights you think I want or care about.

Your 'constitution' is a wet paper bag that carries your 'rights'....not mine.

Chicago and New York City's gun laws are just as fucked up, and they have voting representation in Congress. They'll get no slack from me, either.

BTW: Are there any other bits of the Constitution that you think the District should get a 'special exemption' on?

Reasonable people can disagree about constitutional law but it's pointless if it doesn't provide for the participation of all law abiding citizens.

Exemption? How about INCLUSION.

Until then, your gun rights are special indeed.

I'm genuinely curious...

The rights and responsibilities should apply to all US citizens. The legitimacy of your government depends on it.

It's not the people of the District of Columbia who are cherry picking those rights and responsibilities.

It infuriates me that gun advocates wrap themselves in a Constitution when they are clueless has to how patronizing their concern (or lack thereof) sounds to the people of DC.

Surely by living in DC they are consenting to that restriction on their representation. Just like your assertion that they can deny the Second Amendment. Goose, gander, sauce. Good luck with all that.

What nonsense.

Some of us were born here and don't think giving up property rights is a pre-requisite for having presentation in our government.

Do you tell the people of Iraq to move if they want a republic?

It sounds facsinating.

But I think you need to review your Constitution.

Good luck with that.

.....to get the right to vote? Some of our homes have been in families for years. We don't think a half million people should have to move to get the right to representation.

No thanks.

But heh thanks for the gun rights you think is so much more important. God forbid THAT 'right' doesn't take precedent.

Half a Million people have to rent their homes so they can get the right to vote and the renters don't. No disenfranchisement there.

As for the amendment process, do a Wikapedia search on DC statehood so you can learn what has been done.

I get it- you disagree with the party platform regarding DC voting rights ....but heh what about those gun rights!

Stupid should hurt, and the cost of losing Heller will help to remind District taxpayers not to elect dumbasses...

...like that has ever worked.

You want to bring guns into a community without our consent ......you win.....but don't wrapped it into some major rights victory for DC citizens who have no rights given we don't elect your government and pay federal taxes unlike citizens in US territories.

for an amendment like this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

DC had a Constitutional convention in the 80s. It went to the states for ratification. Our request for statehood (New Columbia) did not get ratified.

..For Free" card. That shit went out the door with a couple of other SC cases you should be familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

I daresay there were plenty of voters in Virginia (and not a few in Texas) that were unhappy with outcome of those cases. Fuck 'em.

Citizens of Texas and Virginia are represented in their federal government by voting members of Congress.

So if the DC cops decide that those pesky Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply in the District because of lack of representation, you'd be cool with it?

....is part of a federal government with voting representation in that government.

DC is not. I'd be cool if we were. Anything else is speculation on your part.

...rests upon the consent and inclusion of the people in that government or republic.

Virginia has that. DC does not.

Here are the facts:
1. The Constitution states clearly that the national capitol was to be located in a district, not to exceed 10 miles square. (Article I, Section 8)
2. Congress was given exclusive legislative control of the district. (Same source as point 1)
3. A district is NOT a state, and therefore not entitled to representation of any kind in Congress. (Multiple court decisions)

Some other information:
There has been no constitutional convention in this country since the 1780's. You may be talking about the organized effort to lobby for congressional representation. That resulted in the ability to have a representative in the House who can sit on committees, participate in debate, vote in committee as well as on procedural matters, and introduce legislation. However, he or she can't vote on the floor of the House.
DC also has 3 electoral votes in the Electoral College during presidential elections.

So the truth is, you do have representation in the national government. Not as much as those of us living in a state, but not exactly like being marooned on Devil's Island. Before you start hollering about how you are being mistreated, consider this - YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE THERE. The last time I looked, there are no prison walls around D.C. If you don't like the lack of voting representation, then I suggest you move.

In any case, try to do your research next time before you start posting...

Your first fact is true.

Would it surpise you to know that DC citizens have voting respresenation in the House three times that lasted on and off for over 80 years?

Where does it say in the Constitution DC citizens are to pay federal taxes but citizens in US territories (like Guam or US Virgin Islands) don't?

Where does it say in your constitution I have to sell my property to get representation in your government?

You could be a poster child for King George.......if you don't like the colonies....move........

And yes, I'm well aware of what constitutional amendment gave DC electoral presidential college votes (hint---it happened when the President at the time was drafting us to a war we were dying in and paying taxes for).

The constitutional convention I was refering to was for our STATEHOOD.

to those who question the districts policies.

From "Emily gets her gun", when she was in filing out forms to obtain permission to legally acquire a handgun.

MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE”

I checked all the boxes on the test, only to be handed more forms to sign. I only skimmed the “Background Investigation release form” and the “Notification of fingerprinting services fee” because I was drowning in paper.

While I was sitting out of sight behind the counter filling out the papers, I overheard a phone conversation with Officer Hall and a District resident who was clearly frustrated with the gun registration process.
The police officer was trying to calm the person down, but clearly having the opposite effect. “Some states are even tougher than D.C. - California I believe,” he told the caller. I wanted to yell out, but held my tongue. I kept writing my name while Officer Hall continued to politely listen to the caller and answer his questions, but ceded no ground regarding the difficulty of the process.

After he hung up, he said to the woman in the office, “I always say, ‘When in Rome, do what the Romans do. And if you don’t like Rome, move somewhere else.’”

I was appalled. I stood up and held out the forms. “All done, now what?” I yelled out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jan/27/miller-applying-register-gun-dc/

Maybe the district should be renamed Mr Jones Manor Farm.

Since all the sources I can find on the web directly contradict your statement about 80 years of voting representation - at least in Congress. Source, please.

As for the other inaccuracies in your post:
1. The 23rd amendment, granting DC 3 votes in presidential elections, passed in 1961 under Kennedy. I don't remember a war in 1961...the 23rd was proposed by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states. Still not a constitutional convention.
2. there was an attempt in 1978 to get an amendment passed to confer statehood on DC. It failed miserably - only 16 states out of 38 signed on. STILL not a constitutional convention.
3. In 1982, DC residents approved a so-called constitutional convention and drafted a state constitution, attempting to repeat the steps taken by other states when they were still territories. However, Congress never approved it, and so it has no force.
4. You're partially correct on federal taxes. Residents of the various territories pay taxes under the same tax structure as the U.S., using the same forms we do. However, they are considered to be a separate taxing jurisdiction so all tax revenues go to the local government.

1.5 out of 5. You're not doing so good.

Assuming you weren't born in DC and have stayed there all your life, did you not know when you moved to DC that you wouldn't have complete representation? You do get all the other benefits of U.S. citizenship, so trying to give the ipression that DC is no better than a colony is specious. If you really feel that you're being shortchanged, your only current option is to relocate. It will most likely take a constitutional amendment for DC to be granted statehood. Based on the results from the last attempt in 1978, I don't like your chances.

Of course, there is another option - let Maryland take back the land it originally gave up. That way, you would be a Marylander. Yippee!

In the meantime, on the original topic:
The Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC held, unanimously, that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. The point of disagreement was on what level of regulation abridges that right. In McDonald vs. Chicago, the 2nd was incorporated under the 14th amendment, meaning that it applies to all states. (The Heller decision applied it specifically to DC)

Anything else?

One of the District's arguments was the Second Amendment only applied to STATES and since they weren't one...

The Supremes busted that balloon with Heller.

In McDonald Chicago argued that Heller did not apply to the states since the ruling only affected the District and Federal territory.

Dickwad Daley did for the citizens of Chicago (and Oak Park, who were stupid enough to believe him when he promised Chicago would pay their legal expenses if they joined Chicago in fighting McDonald) what Fuckhead Fenty did for denizens of DC.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence lobbied to have the D.C. gun laws changed so the case would not eligible to be heard by the Supreme Court. Paul Helmke, before the Court granted certiorari, pleaded with D.C. to modify its gun laws.

He understood that the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment was tenuous, at best. The foundation of most gun control arguments was that the Second Amendment only protected the States' right to arm militias. The very foundation, the most basic tenet of faith for every gun banner, has always been that the Founders never intended for the "people" to own arms. He clearly understood that by going to the Supreme Court, the District ran the risk of the court finding for an "individual right." That would drive a stake right through the heart of the most earnestly cherished notions of gun control proponents.

That his worst fears came to fruition is evident when he ruefully admitted that after the court ruled that the door had been shut, "the path to a complete ban on gun ownership is now gone."

And state that no one but POTUS and VPOTUS could live here. The rest of DC becomes part of whatever state will take them, and everyone living there are now citizens of said state.

Problem solved.

Despite there being a tacit requirement that the holder of an FFL be open to the public and not in violation of any local zoning laws a Mr. Josh Sugarmann holds an FFL

[link:http://fflgundealers.net/sugarmann-joshua-alan.html|Sugarmann, Joshua Alan
1730 Rhode Island Ave Nw #1014
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-822-8200]


In case that location is unfamiliar, that is the office of the Violence Policy Center. Why does the head of an avowed anti-gun group need a license to deal guns?

Josh is a closeted gun lover. Will Ms Maddow will be getting the vapors over this?

I could care less.

Why don't you call and ask assuming what you say is true about him or your 'tacit' requirement?

Shouldn't you be happy?

There are, according to you ....TWO.

LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann



http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html

Probably needed one to take pictures of the guns for one of his popular books.

Check the link. His license is current. The hypocrisy is that the District has never hassled him about zoning.

The reason there is only one FFL in the District is the District PD need him to acquire their firearms. The District has used its zoning laws to make sure there are no others.

Well that is except for their fellow hypocrites.

...the District isn't hassling anyone.

It was afterall the DC Council that voted to allow the current single license dealer to sell on DC government property until he could find affordable site.

Fact is his old site rent went up due to landowners insurance going up due to guns.

By the way, your dealer had sites zoned properly. He just didn't want to pay price.

It's called capitalism. Low demand, high costs....bad business model.

But heh, you all come down to your plantation here in DC if you want to show us how it's done.

Ok. I guess that makes sense since you post so much about it.

in their fight then you have no bitch coming. You fucking lost. Your fucking dipshit politicians lost. Your fucking six figure first only and ever Solicitor General lost and they three big shot legal firms your fucking politicians hire all fucking lost.

So you first get to pay all them, and you get to pay the one who whipped them.

Suck it up, In for a penny, in for a pound. You threw in with losers, you get to suffer their fate.

You have no bitch coming, you knew the rules of the game, gambled and lost.

A truly intellectual post of profound importance.

Yes we lost.
Yes we will pay.
Yes it was worth every penny.

Gun violence has cost us far more.

Sure.....we lost....if you say so.

It was money well spent. Hope we can do it again.

DC residents simply don't want to buy the guns our masters told us we had to have here on the plantation.

you "had to have" guns? Do they do this often?

Just to let you know:

I might agree that your post below was over the top, but if I had been on the jury I would have voted to leave it in. From everything else of yours I have read, it doesn't reflect your values and beliefs. I'm guessing it was a tongue-in-cheek post - one that probably sounded a lot funnier in your head (been there, done that - more than once!)

This doesn't mean that I'll be any easier on your in our sparring matches...

No doubt that's because that is still against city ordinance and the labyrinth of red tape involved in actually exercising the right to own a firearm.

Less police, road repairs, social programs, etc. so folks who can't walk out the door without a gun feel good.

Now that's good ole Democratic thinking. [sarcasm thingy]


If we are lucky, attorneys will go after Heller for the amounts not paid. That'll stop this kind of BS suits against cities quickly.

You do realize that he won, don't you? The court ruled in his favor and against the city. If anything, the city is full of BS for wanting to deny citizens their constitutional rights.

The city is making an attempt to control guns -- I find little fault with that. Probably because I don't need a gun to feel safe walking down the street or into a restaurant.

As to a Constitutional right -- Was Dick H in a well regulated militia? Or, just a tool of the NRA?

To some degree, ALL of them supported Heller.

" This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment."

I agree that it doesn't protect things like concealed carry, but it MUST protect the right of individuals to retain firearms within their own homes.

Miller clearly showed the court believed any military weapons would be acceptable. For instance, the short-barreled shotgun was found to be prohibited because of a lack of evidence that it was in common use by the military. A lack of evidence, not because it wasn't used, it was, and quite heavily, but rahter a lack of evidence because Miller had died and his counsel offered no such evidence.

Miller's counsel was a complete no show. Imagine if Miller had a Thompson or BAR.

Miller was dead and his counsel could not make the long trip to DC for the SCOTUS hearing.

So only the prosecution presented a case. I think that's largely why they decided that shotguns are not military weapons in common use. Nobody was there to correct them on the reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

that prevent Miller's counsel from showing up was that the Attorney General, Homer Cummings not only fast tracked the case to the Supreme Court, Miller's lawyer was not notified until too late.

Gun control was a part of the New Deal program and legislation that would compel all sportsmen to register their firearms and store them in armories when they are not being used for hunting or target purposes had been proposed and was being debated in Congress.

So it was no surprise when Attorney General Homer Cummings, acted immediately to overturn the lower court judge, bypassing the Federal Appeals Courts and going directly to the USSC. The unprecedented speed with which the Federal government reacted was telling. From arrest to Supreme Court decision in under 11 months. Also curious, only the Solicitor General made arguments or briefed the appeal. The counsel for defense wasn't invited.

Makes one wonder, until you remember the Attorney General also said, “We certainly don’t expect gangsters to come forward to register their weapons and be fingerprinted, and a $200 tax is frankly prohibitive to private citizens.”

"although with some restrictions on numbers and type."

When Daley and his cronies were suing every gun company in sight, all the gun controllers could do is cheer them on and encourage the courts to do what the legislature refused to do.

Now the cities are getting their ass handed to them in court and the taxpayers are picking up the bills for their repeated refusal to abide by court rulings. All of a sudden the gun control folks are worried about city services being compromised.

That's called situational ethics in some quarters, simple hypocrisy in most, and it's not a Progressive value last time I looked..

.

Washington had it's chance. Helmke pleaded with them to change their laws and not let this case get to the Supreme Court.

Have you looked at the three top tier national legal firms the District hired? There was a veritable army of $1000 an hour lawyers, countless paralegals, not to mention the District's own attorneys, plus the first, only and ever Solicitor General hired at a 6 figure salary, just to argue this case.

The District could have softened its position after losing in the Appeals court. Nope, they dug in their heels and went for the whole enchilada. Chicago did the same damn thing. I can almost understand Chicago's fight, their lawyers were Daley's relatives. We are talking Chicago, after all. He knew he would lose, but at least he feathered his personal nest.

You gotta like that even in retirement Daley has a security detail from the Chicago PD.

Fenty in DC and Daley in Chicago gambled with their taxpayers' money and LOST! LOST! LOST! Daley gambled with Oak Park's money and lost for them too!

The plaintiff's are due recompense for their legal fees. For DC to argue now that because they owe mega millions to their own lawyers that paying the legal fees for violating a citizen's rights is a burden on the taxpayer is just beyond the pale.