Previous Post
Next Post

Who says the wheels of justice grind slowly? OK, in this case it’s the determination of legal fees that took three and a half years, and no one’s going to cry a river over lawyers waiting for the dough. Except maybe Ralph. But we’re trying to keep our schadenfreude meter from spinning off into the stratosphere at the news, via, that Richard Heller’s attorneys, led by Alan Gura, were just awarded $1,137,072.27 in fees and expenses for their work in the DC vs. Heller case decided by the Supreme Court in 2008…

Even better, the city of Washington, D.C., after infringing on its citizens’ constitutional rights, will have to pony up. The attorneys wanted $3.1 million and D.C. argued it should only be $840,000, so the federal judge who decided the matter split that baby closer to the District’s number. Of course, D.C. is a federal district, which means we’ll all ultimately have to chip in a few pennies to cover the bill, but I’ll be happy to kick in for that one. Spend it well, Mr. Gura. You earned it.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Not to worry – there are enough idiotic municipalities to keep pro-2A litigators well-fed for a long time. Like Chicago, for instance.

      Strangely [or not] it seems that most of those anti-2A governments are hovering around bankruptcy. Again, like Chicago, for instance. But there’s always enough money to lay out to defend blatantly unconstitutional gun regulations.

      Maybe the problem with these gun-grabbers is self-solving. Wait a little and their little fiefdoms will collapse of high taxation, incompetence, corruption, and bankruptcy. But it’s always a pleasure to see heros like Gura greasing the skids.

  1. As we speak I am lifting a glass to Mr. Gura. I happen to be visiting Chicago at the moment, so there’s not much else I can do. However, when I return home to my much gun-friendlier state I’ll hit the range in his honor. May he live long and prosper at the expense of the anti-2 A movement.

  2. A good 2A attorney can probably have a field day with San Francisco’s anti-gun laws, and the City will help any 2A attorney accrue many hours fighting their illegal laws.

    • It’s a start. There’s a lot more suing to be done, unless DC suddenly decides to respect the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. Okay, I’ll wait until you’re done laughing.

    • The problem is that when this sort of judgment is paid, it comes out of OUR pockets. I’m not saying Gura didn’t earn every cent, but what we need is laws like those in Florida that make politicians personally responsible for illegally persecuting gun owners. In florida, not only are the municipalities on the hook, but individual politicians can be removed from office by the governor, fined up to $5000, and private citizens can sue for up to $100,000

  3. the real attorney $$$ is in class actions . . . . perhaps Gura should initiate one on behalf of citizens denied their 2A rights in Chicago, DC, SanFran and other cities . . . . .

    • I agree completely. I have asked before, why not file a class action suite against DC for every person who was ever arrested, charged, fined, imprisoned and had property confiscated under DC’s previous unconstitutional Gun Ban. Every one of them had their civil rights violated under the color of a law that the Supreme Court found to be void from the day it was passed.

  4. I bet Chicago has plenty of money from taxes, fees and fines along with Boston and New York. It’s time to liberate those dollars. Crooked left wing lawyers have done it for years for their social causes.

  5. All of you should hold off on your cheers to Alan Gura. Mr. Gura just so happens to think that the government has the authority to license the carrying of weapons outside the home…Read his last appeal out of Cali. That’s a big contradiction right there and one the USSC doesn’t agree with. What they said about licensing a right can be found in Murdock v Penn 319 U.S. 105 (1943);

    “It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”

Comments are closed.