The bill for Heller: $3.5 million

[Flyboy]

For those complaining, remember that $500/hr is only a million dollars a year.

That's really not that much, given the qualifications and skills of the players.

Put it this way: what did your favorite ball player make per-hour last year? Who hit the bigger home run?

 

[akodo]

regarding the NRA originally not liking the case and wanting to go in a different direction...

The NRA came VERY CLOSE to being right. It was 5-4, it could have been 4-5.

Thank God it wasn't.

 

[KBintheSLC]

The NRA came VERY CLOSE to being right. It was 5-4, it could have been 4-5.

Thank God it wasn't.

We should never forget this. We should never become arrogant about the decision either. It was barely a victory... like a photo finish. Years down the road, the SCOTUS may swing the other way. Maintaining our rights is a journey, not a destination.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

The NRA came VERY CLOSE to being right.

In one sense, yes, in another, no.

I'd say the NRA was right that the case was a very big risk. The point where they were wrong, IMO, was that the Supreme court was eventually going to take a 2nd amendment test case, if not one crafted by our side, then one crafted by the other side. If not when the Court was iffy, then when it was flatly stacked against us.

Sometimes you don't have a choice about taking a big chance, all you've got is a choice about exactly when and how to take it.

That was always the flaw in the NRA's strategy of keeping the 2nd amendment away from the Supreme court. We're not the only ones who can bring lawsuits... Eventually Soros was going to fund the 2nd amendment defense of a crack dealer who'd gotten off murder charges on a technicality, and pilot it right up to the Supreme court for a perfectly crafted complete defeat.

 

[divemedic]

Remember that decisions made by SCOTUS involve a lot of politicing by the justices trying to build a consensus among the others. The ruling in this case was worded as broadly as possible while still maintaining a majority.

The decision could have been 6-3 had it been more narrowly tailored, but this was a good tactic.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Note: the NRA wanted this blocked.

None of the money for this lawsuit came from the NRA
Actually, one of the NRAs lead attorneys (Stephen Halbrook) consulted on the initial case (note the bill to him in the main story)

The NRA did initially fear that the case might create bad precedent when it was first brought in 2003 (with two different Justices sitting than the Court that ultimately heard the case). Given that even then it was a 5-4 case, it doesn't look like the NRAs fears were totally out-of-line.

While the NRA did try to block the case at the lower level, they did support it fully once they realized it was going to the Supreme Court with the current slate of Justices. Even Robert Levy commented that they were an immense help for the Supreme Court case when he spoke to us last fall.

The NRA didn't just want the case blocked. When Gura and Levy refused to drop it, the NRA rounded up a couple of rubbish plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit and tried to merge it with Heller (It was known as Parker at the time). This would give the NRA a seat at the table and allow the NRA to insert all sorts of arguments that would allow a court to avoid deciding the fundamental RTKBA issue.

Courts do not want to get to fundamental rights if they can avoid it. It is the equivalent of escalating the situation to red and drawing a gun. If they can avoid the issue on jurisdictional or temporal grounds they will. The NRA lawsuit tried to add these sorts of arguments so that the lower courts could sidetrack the who lawsuit. Fortunately, the lower courts kicked out the NRA's plaintiffs and said they didn't have a case. However, I still think the NRA ought to pay the legal fees incurred for wasting Levy, Gura and Neily's time if they have not done so already.

Remember that decisions made by SCOTUS involve a lot of politicing by the justices trying to build a consensus among the others. The ruling in this case was worded as broadly as possible while still maintaining a majority.

Remember that decisions made by SCOTUS involve a lot of politicing by the justices trying to build a consensus among the others. The ruling in this case was worded as broadly as possible while still maintaining a majority.

The decision could have been 6-3 had it been more narrowly tailored, but this was a good tactic.

I agree with you, Scalia has never been shy about driving away other justices by writing the opinion he wanted. A 5-4 is still a win, and a strong 5-4 is better than a weak 7-2.

Remember all 9 justices did agree that the RTKBA was an individual right. The dissent just thought the government could regulate it out of existence like porn. If the case was going to go the other way, Scalia would have written a concurrence and Roberts or Kennedy would have written a separate majority opinion that would have either kept Kennedy in the majority or brought over another justice- (O'Conner if she was still around.)

 

[Bubbles]

The NRA didn't just want the case blocked. When Gura and Levy refused to drop it, the NRA rounded up a couple of rubbish plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit and tried to merge it with Heller (It was known as Parker at the time).

Heller was originally known as Parker. The NRA's attempt to derail Parker/Heller was Seegars.

 

[RDak]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but the Richlin v. Chertoff case gives a brief, albeit indirect, view of the SCOTUS interpretations on reimbursements. The Missouri case, cited in the link below can be viewed also via the link in paragraph (b) of the Richlin case.

This decision went 9-0 for Richlin.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1717.ZS.html

I don't know how reimbursements work for the initial case where civil rights were determined to be violated? I mean, DC might argue "well, other Courts said the 2nd Amendment afforded no individual right, so we weren't in violation of a civil right until the SCOTUS ruled as such"?

Now the second Heller case...... hmmmm...?

 

[Master Blaster]

To change the arguement completely, a while back I mentioned the need for socializing Law. Now the fact that it would have easily cost a Washington DC resident $4 million to properly address the unconstitutional denial of rights embodied in the Washington law, the case points out that the average person can't really afford justice or due process any more.
This is also apparent in the criminal justice system where even an unwarranted attack on an individual by a prosecutor with a bone to pick can leave an ordinary person in jail or broke for the rest of his life paying legal fees.
The governments side / prosecutorial side is already socialized, funded by the government with unlimited resources. The Court aspect of the triumvarate is also funded by the government so judges have no incentive to bring cases to a rapid fair and low cost conclusion.
The only side not already socialized is the private end where you or I would have to go broke to hire a decent lawyer to represent our interests.

Surely the founding father's didnt anticipate that the legal system would grow into the liberty strangling octopus it currently is.
By the time Heller has run to conclusion in various venues where the Supreme Court ruling is still to be tested it will probably have consumed $40 million in private legal fees, all expended to counteract the Governments overwhelming resources, and incredible inertia.

 

[RDak]

Read the Richlin case I linked to above Master Blaster.

 

[leadcounsel]

Any updates on whether Heller's lawyers got paid by DC?

 

[Megistopoda]

No word yet, and no news since mid-October. Apparently DC countered the $3.6 million request with an offer of $800 grand. Gura's rebuttal is hard-hitting. I am glad he's on "our side."

DC's opposition brief:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/files/47-1.pdf

Gura's rebuttal:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/files/hellerGura.pdf


Coverage at Blog of Legal Times:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/10/fee-dispute-in.html

Coverage at WSJ blogs:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/10/14...ase-gura-returns-dcs-fire/?mod=googlenews_wsj

The ABA got a bit pissy about this, and noted that Gura and team defended their request with "strong words and italics." Recall that ABA submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the District.

ABA Journal rant:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/heller_lawyers_defend_36m_fee_request_with_strong_words_and_italics/

 

[armoredman]

Pay the man, Fenty!

 

[Yellowfin]

Take it out of Fenty, the police chief's, and the council's salaries retroactively.

 

[Tyrannosaurus]

Any updates on whether Heller's lawyers got paid by DC?

 

[Megistopoda]

Good question. I spoke to Gura about a month ago ... at that time, they were still litigating the settlement.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but the pocketbooks of the oppressors open even more slowly.

 

[Dokkalfar]

hmm.. something tells me they wont get paid for quite a while.

oo! maybe pelosi can add some $$ into her 'stimulus' bill to help cities cover the costs of trying to enforce laws like this, then argue them in courts

 

[ServiceSoon]

How many times are they going to allow Gura to embarass them?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


$3.5 million + 2nd Amendment Victory = BARGAIN







We validated the 2nd Amendment as an individual right for only $3.5 million dollars.


Doesn't get any better then that.



.