Alan Gura, Virginia attorney, wants D.C. to pay him $54,000 in fees in gun law dispute

[DonP]

An attorney who successfully argued a lawsuit challenging the District of Columbia's ban on carrying handguns outside a home or office is asking for a court order requiring the city pay him more than $54,000 for his work.

Attorney Alan Gura filed a motion Tuesday asking for $54,720 in fees. The Alexandria, Virginia-based attorney asked to be paid $640 per hour for 85.5 hours of work on the case.

Last month a federal judge sided with Gura's clients and concluded that the city's ban on carrying a handgun outside the home was unconstitutional.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/alan-gura-va-attorney-wants-d-c-to-pay-him-54-000-in-fees-in-gun-law-dispute-106052.html

Based on his other wins; Heller, McDonald, Ezell etc. that almost seems like chump change. But I'm sure DC will try and weasel it down like they did with the Heller bill.

I guess some people take that whole "Keep and Bear" thing pretty seriously

I wonder how many gun control "activists" will be offering to help DC with it's legal bills?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. "I wonder how many gun control "activists" will be offering to help DC with it's legal bills?"

Yeah, if the city has to pay for it that could cut into their police militarization budget. The cops who would enforce the grabber laws need to protect us to death.

[jimmy the one]

2. heads up, don

Hey there DonP; altho I couldn't care less about alan gun guru gura & hope he doesn't get paid, I thought you should be made aware of this post you made & my response to it on another thread called 'Ban the Second Amendment'.
I'm betting you'll be grateful for this heads up; I know how the 2nd Amendment mythology can really twist things up.

(my reply) time for someone to go 'oops' re dershowitz & tribe

donP wrote: notoriously confusing text of the Second Amendment" Really? Hmmm, Doesn't seem to confuse law professors and constitutional scholars all that much. Dershowits, Tribe and others get it.

{I wrote} Another gun zealot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

wiki: {Alan} Dershowitz is a strong supporter of gun control. He has criticized the Second Amendment, saying that it has "no place in modern society". Dershowitz supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

{I wrote} What dersh was doing with the emboldened sentence above, was saying that 'foolish liberals' shouldn't use that defense to try to counter gunnut philosophy, because it's the wrong approach & would lead to restrictions on other legal constraints. Dersh was NOT contending that 2ndA was an individual right.

As per Lawrence Tribe, DonP footsticks another big one: Tribe, Dec2012: I certainly believe that restricting the kinds of high-powered weapons and ammunition that made possible the horrific slaughters of innocent children and others in recent days and months is well within the power of government even as the Supreme Court has misguidedly interpreted the Second Amendment in Heller and McDonald, purporting to be guided by the original meaning of the text but in fact being driven by an incoherent mishmash of non-originalist considerations.
... the only "individualistic right to keep and bear arms" (that is, the only right to keep and bear arms independent of the organized militia) is a limited right of self-defense that people may exercise vis-à-vis state and local "efforts at disarming people," ... but that "federal gun control legislation essentially invulnerable under the {2ndA} provided the state militia not undermined.
.... It badly distorts the meaning of everything I have written on the subject to treat me as remotely hostile to the comprehensive national regulation of firearms and ammunition possession, transfer, and use;
... The fact that many of my fellow gun control proponents were disappointed by the nuanced character of what I wrote in 2000 shouldn't be allowed to distract from my continuing conclusion that the Constitution permits, and that sane public policy demands, vastly stricter firearms regulation than exists in the United States today."
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/265-34/15098-a-response-from-laurence-tribe-in-the-wake-of-newtown

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=150985

[oneshooter]

3. Why do you don't want him to get paid?

He provided a service and needs to be paid for it.

[jimmy the one]

4. $640 per hour

oneshooter: Why do you don't want him to get paid? He provided a service and needs to be paid for it

Here's a major reason why I don't want him to get paid:

The Alexandria, Virginia-based attorney {Alan Gura} asked to be paid $640 per hour for 85.5 hours of work on the case.

Any other questions?

How does one make $640 per hour? except by gouging a city or state or federal govt? He's not picking up aluminum cans to make D.C. cleaner, about 50c a pound.
That's over $5,000 per day, without risking anything of his own, like gamblers risk their own assets in order to make that kind of daily gain. If he wanted maybe $30 per hour, no big deal imo.
How does someone get up at 7am, wave bye to wifey, come back at 6 & say 'hi honey I'm home, I made $5,000 today'.

OK, another contributing reason. The guy's a rightwing pig who profited off a rightwing supreme court majority subverting the meaning of the 2nd amendment, & he stripped Washington DC of aspects of it's home rule policy.

Any more questions?

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. That's a lot of words to say "He did something I don't like, and shouldn't be paid"

Betcha there'd be no quibble about his fees if they were earned winning a
victory for a cause you approve of...

[sarisataka]

6. The rate seems reasonable

From 2012:

Average billing rates for D.C. lawyers also rose — up 9 percent from $608 per hour in 2010 to $662 per hour in 2012. That’s the fourth-highest billing rate among cities, after New York ($760 per hour), Silicon Valley ($732 per hour) and Boston ($687 per hour).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-business/post/washington-law-firm-partners-are-earning-14-percent-more-than-in-2010/2012/09/19/2d16ec2a-0274-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html

As for being a rightwing pig- should we pay people based on their politics or on the fact that they performed work? Personally I think most lawyers are pigs (I know a couple that are slightly higher on the evolutionary scale) but I do not begrudge them doing their job and being paid for it.

[jimmy the one]

9. suing the victim

sari/wash post: Average billing rates for D.C. lawyers also rose — up 9 percent from $608 per hour in 2010 to $662 per hour in 2012. That’s the fourth-highest billing rate among cities, after New York ($760 per hour), Silicon Valley ($732 per hour) and Boston ($687 per hour).

I believe that's for lawyers defending their own clients, or prosecuting an adversary of their clientele. Gura evidently is wanting to be paid for screwing a DC home rule tenet, wanting to be paid by the ones who got screwed. Like a perjurer suing his victim for sending him to prison.

sari: As for being a rightwing pig- should we pay people based on their politics or on the fact that they performed work? Personally I think most lawyers are pigs but I do not begrudge them doing their job and being paid for it.

Was DC negligent somehow? so they should be held liable for their opposition's fees?
The handgun ban I believe was okayed by DC home rule circa 1976, & it was an accepted legal form of gun control then, in order to stifle predominantly young black males carrying guns & committing crimes (black DC sheriff's words, paraphrased). It was considered fair & legal prior to heller in 2008 subverting 2ndA into an individual rkba. DC went to the US supreme court to have it's handgun ban remain intact.
(edit to add, extends to carrying guns outside the home, as pertains to gura's suit)
Gura did work (snicker), likely soiled his shirts in the underarm area now & then, but he did not do work for DC, he only did 'work', against them.

[beevul]

10. Spin like that tends to make things come apart.

"I believe that's for lawyers defending their own clients, or prosecuting an adversary of their clientele. Gura evidently is wanting to be paid for screwing a DC home rule tenet, wanting to be paid by the ones who got screwed. Like a perjurer suing his victim for sending him to prison."

That's some spin there.

Your argument is essentially "Yeah, they have to follow rules, but not in their own house".

To argue that the federal government is not bound by the rules that govern the federal government is silly.

The government argued as you do, lost in court and rightfully so, and now a price has to be paid for that.

The only thing DC was a victim of, was their own stubborn stupidity.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[sarisataka]

11. So in essence

You don't like his position so he shouldn't be paid.


Victim?

it was an accepted legal form of gun control then, in order to stifle predominantly young black males carrying guns & committing crimes

It seems this home rule is racist in origin. Was not Gura's client an African-American?
Should racially based laws be left alone for the "greater good"? Stop and frisk reduced crime; you just have to overlook how ir was applied.

[oneshooter]

7. So are you and your $30 an hour lawyer going to go after him?

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

For gouging the Govt.?

[pablo_marmol]

8. ***