DC Won't Appeal In Wrenn Case

It is being reported by District of Columbia new station WTOP that the Attorney General of DC has decided not to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision in Wrenn v. DC. The decision overturned the District's "good reason" requirement to obtain a carry permit. The last time the District of Columbia lost in a major Second Amendment case they appealed. That case was DC v. Heller.

From WTOP:

After days of consulting with the mayor’s office and city council members, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has reportedly decided not to fight a ruling that effectively strikes down the District’s strict law that makes it difficult for gun owners to get concealed carry permits.

Sources told WTOP’s broadcast news partner NBC Washington that Racine made the decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and will formally make an announcement later on Thursday.

This cements the win for carry in DC. Conversely, an appeal to the Supreme Court might have provided the opportunity to overturn negative decisions on carry such Peruta in the 9th Circuit and Kalchalsky in the 2nd Circuit. Whether or not the Supreme Court will ever take up a carry case still remains to be seen.


H/T Sebastian

DC Asks For En Banc Hearing In Wrenn Case

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, we draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of gun violence, and we say gun control now, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever.

The quote above is actually a paraphrase of a line in the 1963 inaugural address of the late Alabama Gov. George Corley Wallace (D-AL). Wallace was talking about the segregation of the races. The absolutism shown by the District of Columbia on the matter of the right to keep and bear arms is strikingly similar to that of Wallace on race. However, unlike Wallace who publicly recanted his racist and segregationist positions, the District of Columbia Council shows no such inclination towards the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, it was no surprise that DC filed for an en banc hearing of the Wrenn decision which invalidated their "good reason" requirement for a carry permit.

The brief filed yesterday requesting an en banc rehearing attacks the majority decision on two fronts. First, they argue that they are a special place that is entirely urban and that contains many sensitive places like foreign embassies. They argue that the majority ignored the special needs of such a locale and then contend that their "good reason" may-issue carry law helps reduce crime and save lives. They cite a pantheon of anti-Second Amendment academics ranging from Saul Cornell to John Donohue as their evidence for this contention. They especially rely on the latter and ignore the criticism of his work due to "synthetic statistics".

The second front of their attack on the majority decision is to say that it ignored historical precedent and the two-step process established in Heller I.

Rather than follow this well-worn path, the panel majority failed to conduct its own historical analysis at the first step, instead drawing assumptions from Heller I’s historical analysis. Op. 14-17. And then the panel majority did not even proceed to the second step of the Second Amendment inquiry, mistakenly finding the District’s law categorically unconstitutional. Op. 25-29. These missteps departed from established precedent and warrant en banc review.

In this second front they also point out binding precedents in other circuits such as Kachalsky in the 2nd and Peruta in the 9th which ruled against shall-issue carry in the former or any carry in the latter. As to the 7th Circuit and the twin cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan which did find a right to carry outside the home, they cherry-picked from that decision.

They conclude:

Even if Heller I’s historical analysis did imply something about the scope of public carry in general, it did not hold anything about whether the pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment included a right to publicly carry firearms on crowded city streets in the nation’s capital with no particularized self-defense reason―let alone do so clearly enough to warrant the entry of judgment on appeal from a preliminary-injunction ruling. This Court should grant en banc review to correct the error and consider the District’s law using the appropriate analysis dictated by Heller I, II, and III.

It is a toss-up to whether they will be granted the rehearing and also a toss-up on what the full panel of judges on the DC Circuit might decide. Given former President Obama's stacking of the DC Circuit, we could very well see a decision like that of the 9th Circuit in Peruta where a win was nullified.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which is an organization plaintiff in the case, released a statement yesterday regarding the petition for an en banc rehearing. Quoting Alan Gottlieb, it said, in part:

“The Second Amendment Foundation expected the City of Washington, DC to file this appeal in an attempt to try to overturn our court victory that said their virtual ban on the right to carry a firearm for self-protection was unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF has been battling the city over this issue for some time. The city has strenuously resisted these legal efforts, arguing in its latest petition that the city is “unique” because of its dense population that includes “thousands of high-ranking federal officials and international diplomats.” But earlier this summer, the District Court of Appeals majority opinion is that the “good reason” restriction violates the Second Amendment rights of citizens living in the district.

“They have no intention of complying with any court decision that supports the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said. “It took the Heller decision to force them to allow a gun in your own home for self-defense. It took the Palmer decision, another SAF case, to force them to repeal their total ban on carry and now they are kicking and screaming about losing the Wrenn decision.”

Gottlieb maintains that even if the District is “unique,” the citizens living there still retain their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The city’s “good reason” requirement makes it far too easy to deny all but a few people their rights on the flimsy grounds that average citizens never have a good enough reason. The court recognized this problem and ruled against the District’s requirement, he noted.

“Municipal stubbornness cannot be allowed to outweigh the constitution,” Gottlieb said. “A civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.”

I like that last line - a civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.

Just How Are We Supposed To Do That In DC, Pray Tell, Chief Lanier?

Emily Miller, author of Emily Gets Her Gun and one of only 45 people in the District of Columbia with a carry permit, tweeted this yesterday afternoon.

I'll have to wear tactical gear and get a rifle since Chief Lanier expects 45 of us to bring down active shooters before police arrive!

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) November 21, 2015

It was in response to the interview with DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier by 60 Minutes. In the interview which dealt with active shooters, Lanier said that it was unreasonable to expect the police to arrive in time to stop most mass shootings. She told Anderson Cooper:

I always say if you can get out, getting out's your first option, your best option. If you're in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it's the best option for saving lives before police can get there. And that's-- you know, that's kind of counterintuitive to what cops always tell people, right? We always tell people, "Don't-- you know, don't take action. Call 911. Don't intervene in the robbery"-- you know-- you know-- we've never told people, "Take action." It's a different-- this is a different scenario.

 You can see the full interview below which also includes comments by NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton.

View More: Newsmakers News|60 Minutes News|Live News|More News Videos

One Step Down, One To Go For Emily Miller

Emily Miller became the 15th person to be preliminarily approved for a carry permit in the District of Columbia. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier approved Emily's carry permit subject to her successfully completing an 18 hour approved training course training course within 45 days. Emily says she fully intends to complete the process but won't say when or where she will actually carry.

Emily reported on this yesterday on DC's Fox 5 News. Her permit was approved based upon her two police reports involving threats. Chief Lanier dismissed her other documented threat as being too general in nature.



DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Emily was also on Fox and Friends this morning discussing the carry permit.



Congratulations to Emily on this. If I had to guess, Chief Lanier considered not only the documented threats but the uproar that Emily could have generated if she wasn't given a permit. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Emily got her permit but I have this gut feeling that your average person's application would not have been given the same consideration.

I'm sure the ne'er do wells at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) will want to start another petition to get Emily fired from her job as an investigative reporter at Fox 5. In the meantime, that wailing and gnashing of teeth in DC just might be coming from them.

"The Second Amendment Was For When The British Were Coming"

If I were a book publisher, I'd be offering Emily Miller a book contract right now. That's because you know she has another one in the offing with the way she is being treated by the DC Police as she tries to get a DC carry permit.

The headline comes from what a DC police employee said to Ms. Miller regarding the Second Amendment. He said it really doesn't apply to the District because it "was for when the British were coming." You can't make this stuff up.

Katie Pavlich gives her take on Ms. Miller's travails here.


DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Chief Lanier's Memo To Metro Officers (Updated)

Thanks to the efforts of the National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, we have the memo that District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier had sent out to all officers of the Metropolitan Police Department regarding carrying a pistol, either open or concealed, within the District.

07-137-14 by David Codrea

UPDATE: David Codrea, the National Gun Rights Examiner, has an updated "official teletype" message from Chief Cathy Lanier that provides further guidance to the officers of the Metropolitan Police Department regarding the lawful carry of firearms outside the home in DC. This message goes into much greater detail than the earlier one issued on Sunday. While the District has officially requested a stay of the decision by Judge Scullin, it has not yet been granted as of early this morning.

Reading through the teletype, it is important to note that it only applies to handguns. The carry of a long gun such as a rifle or shotgun outside the home is still prohibited.

Given the fluidity of the legal situation, I'd be very careful if I were carrying in DC as a non-resident or even as a resident. The motion for the stay could be granted at any time which would probably return things to what they were before the decision. Or to use the full Latin phrase, status quo ante bellum. And yes, it is a war for our rights.

07-138-14 MPD Teletype by David Codrea

Update On Carry In DC (Updated)

Emily Miller had a post a few minutes ago on Facebook regarding enforcement of the now nullified carry prohibitions in the District of Columbia.

Per DC Police Chief Lanier, the only gun arrests allowed now are DC residents with unregistered guns and non-residents who are prohibited under federal laws from possessing firearms. Everyone else is in the clear.

This sounds like good news to those in metro DC.

You know, if you think about it, for the time being, Maryland residents have greater firearm freedoms in the District than they have in the so-called Free State.

UPDATE: Dave Kopel has an excellent post up at the Volokh Conspiracy on this along with some warnings about carry in DC. He suggests caution until an official pronouncement is made.

His long post also delves into the meaning of the win in Palmer. Tom Palmer, by the way, was one of the original plaintiffs in the case that became DC v. Heller when it reached the Supreme Court. He was dropped along the way due to standing issues by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others

Now more than ever we live in an Orwellian world. 

Thanks to Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned for pointing out a story on TMZ regarding BATFE intervention on behalf of David Gregory and his illegal in DC 30-round magazine. It seems officials in Comrade Napolean's, err, I mean President Obama's ATF contacted the Metro PD on behalf of NBC and were told Gregory could "display" the magazine.

Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... a staffer from "Meet the Press" called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun control.  We're told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find out if the District of Columbia -- the place where the show is broadcast -- had a law prohibiting such a display. 

Our sources say the D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine, provided it was empty.  An ATF official then called the staffer from "Meet the Press" to inform them they could use the magazine.

From a reader comment that Glenn Reynolds posted on Instapundit along with his response:

Reader Stephen Johnson emails: “ATF approval simply makes no sense. The ATF has no jurisdiction over DC gun laws. And if, in fact, NBC news called the ATF to ask ‘permission’ this just reinforces how stupid they are about gun laws and jurisdiction. This story smells…. bad.” Hmm. If D.C. were a state I’d be sure this was correct. But since it’s a federal enclave I’m not sure.

Insofar as comments go regarding this matter, I do like the one from rickn8or at Say Uncle:

So if we get caught with anything illegal in DC, all we gotta do is tell the cop we want a “David Gregory”?

Unfortunately, I think one has to be a member of the national propaganda corps aka the mainstream media to be able to get a "David Gregory". 

Interesting But Not The Best Of Ideas

By now you may have read about the DC Metropolitan Police Department's active investigation into David Gregory. The host of NBC's Meet the Press thought a 30 round AR magazine would make a cool prop to shake in the face of Wayne LaPierre this past Sunday. What Gregory didn't think about was the DC law which forbids the mere possession of any magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds. If he did think about the law, he obviously assumed it didn't apply to "esteemed journalists" such as himself.

Now conservative attorney Aaron Walker is offering to defend Gregory on Second Amendment grounds in a challenge to the DC law. Walker, who blogs and tweets as "Aaron Worthing", made the offer yesterday on Twitter. Twitchy has aggregated the tweets by Walker on the subject here. Walker is better known for the whole Brett Kimberlin saga.

While at first blush it sounds like a great idea challenging the DC law on Second Amendment grounds to get a gun hater off, in this case it is rather short sighted. As Alan Gura has pointed out many times in many venues, Second Amendment litigation needs to be strategic. Case law needs to built bit by bit and precedents set. It is a cumulative process where the success of the current case depends upon earlier positive precedents. This is the same process that Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund used over time to defeat both de jure and de facto segregation by race.

The threat to this strategy comes from both criminal attorneys trying to use the Second Amendment to get crooks off the hook and misguided ideologues like Leonard Embody who represent themselves in court. I think defending David Gregory in a court of law on Second Amendment grounds would likewise be a threat to this strategy. While you and I may disagree, I think it highly unlikely at this time that a court would find the DC restrictions unreasonable and inconsistent with the Heller decision.

So I would say to Aaron Walker, while it sounds like a cool idea, don't go there if you care at all about the Second Amendment.

A Good Start To The Month

Coming off the month of March in which he had wins at the District Court level in both the Woollard and Bateman cases, Alan Gura starts the month of April with news of a fee settlement with the District of Columbia for more than US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan had awarded.

From BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times:

The attorneys who won the landmark D.C. gun case in the Supreme Court in 2008 have agreed to settle a legal fee dispute with the city for $1.5 million, terminating a dispute in a Washington federal appeals court.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, including Alan Gura of Alexandria's Gura & Possessky, who argued the high profile gun rights case in the Supreme Court, had sought more than the $1.17 million a trial judge awarded in December.

While I still think the District of Columbia is getting off cheap, I'm glad to see Alan Gura and Clark Neily finally getting paid for their years of work on the Heller case.

A spokesman for the city said they decided to settle to avoid the "uncertainties" of the appeals process. Given that first and foremost Alan is an appellate attorney, I think this probably was wise on the part of the city.

Creating A Gun Rights Activist

Emily Miller just wanted a gun for protection at home. The District of Columbia still wants to delay the process as long as possible and put up as many bureaucratic roadblocks as possible the Heller decision notwithstanding. The end result is that as of today Emily Miller is officially a gun owner as she picked up her Sig P229 pistol and took it home. She is also now a gun rights activist.

Now, this series is far from over. As I've found, the hurdles placed before gun owners do not end here. I need to figure out the laws on getting ammunition and transporting the gun to a state that allows practice shooting.

Most of all, I intend to keep pushing the Council of the District of Columbia to rewrite the its laws to make them fair and constitutional for law-abiding Americans.

Emily has already testified before the DC City Council about her experience in obtaining her gun permit and her Sig P229. I fully expect that she will keep pushing the DC City Council to bring their gun laws in line with the rest of America.

There is an old saying that says politicians shouldn't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the ton. This is exactly what DC just did as Emily is a senior editor at the Washington Times and I think that they will rue the day that they made it difficult for her to defend herself.

What If Emily Wasn't Smart, Articulate, And Connected

In the interview below with Natasha Barrett of Newschannel 8, Emily Miller explains the events that convinced her to want to buy a gun and then her efforts to actually purchase a gun since she is a D.C. resident. If you have been following her series in the Washington Times, you know it has been a long and arduous process.

It has also been expensive. In addition to the price of her new Sig 229, Emily has had to spend $435 in fees and other expenses to meet the District of Columbia's gun regulations. She is now having to wait 10 days before she can take her new pistol home due to a "cooling off" period.





Emily Miller is an attractive, well-educated (Georgetown), well-spoken young woman with a high profile position as a senior editor with the Washington Times. Before that she was the deputy press secretary for both Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice.  If someone like her with all of her connections has this much trouble exercising her Constitutional right to own a firearm for her own self-defense in her own home, imagine what it is like for everyone else who isn't as bright, articulate, and connected. If you said, damn near impossible, I think you'd be correct.

I hope she mentions that when she testifies before D.C. City Council on Monday, January 30th.

Government As Gun Dealer? (Updated)

Believe it or not but this is NOT a story about Operation Fast and Furious, Operation Castaway, or any of the other Project Gunwalker variants.

It is, however, about a proposal before the District of Columbia City Council that would make the D.C. government a Federal Firearms Licensee. Currently there are no operating FFLs in the District of Columbia since Charles Sykes lost his lease. As the Washington Post reports:

While Sykes’s business in on hiatus, D.C. residents have been prevented de facto from buying guns, which has opened the city to lawsuits. In late May, Virginia lawyer Alan Gura sued the city in Alexandria’s federal court on behalf of three District residents who have purchased guns legally but are unable to transfer them into the city.

The lawsuit in question is Lane et al v. Holder et al and is being tried in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Alan Gura. The suit goes to the heart of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which forbade interstate transfers of handguns except for FFL to FFL transfers. More on that suit can be found here.

Council Member At-Large Phil Mendelson (D) has proposed three emergency bills that would make the District a FFL. From his notice for the July 12th Council meeting that was sent to all members of the City Council:

• Firearms Amendment Emergency Declaration Resolution Act of 2011
• Firearms Amendment Emergency Amendment Act of 2011
• Firearms Amendment Temporary Amendment Act of 2011

The above measures would permit the District to operate as a Federal Firearms licensee (FFL) for the purpose of individuals' interstate purchase and transfer of handguns when there is no active FFL operating in the District. The sole FFL that had been operating in the District is not currently operating, meaning that a District resident who wishes to purchase a handgun cannot bring it into the District since an FFL is required to physically receive the firearm and then provide it to the licensed owner. This emergency act will permit the District to operate as the FFL in the limited circumstance where there is not otherwise an FFL in operation in the District, thereby allowing District residents who wish to purchase firearms to do so legally.

Mr. Mendelson has said that gun control opponents are "waiting to pounce" on the District over the lack of a FFL. Actually, as I noted above, they have already pounced and have a very solid case. As to Mr. Sykes and his efforts to find a new location, he has said he has proposed a number of locations to the District but they have all been rejected.

This might be the time for a pro-gun Congressman to introduce a bill forbidding the District from becoming a FFL. I would hate to imagine the fees they would charge for a transfer plus the hoops they would make you jump just to pick up your paid-for firearm.

UPDATE: It looks like the DC City Council will be rejecting this bill.

Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and council members expressed a variety of concerns about Mendelson’s proposal.

In a letter delivered to council members Tuesday morning, Gray said the proposal would impose an “unnecessary burden on the government, would potentially subject the District government to liability and also undermines the District’s strong public stance in support of gun control.”

D.C. Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown (D) and Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said they worried the District would be liable for gun deaths if the legislation was approved.

The proponent of this bill, Councilman Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), seems to be the only one who realizes what a tight spot the District of Columbia finds itself with no operating gun shop to act as a transfer agent. You have attorney Alan Gura and his suit, Lane v. Holder, on one side and a pro-gun Congress on the other. Frankly, I'm glad they punted on this proposal as it makes it more likely that Lane v. Holder will succeed in its thrust at the heart of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

HR 645 - A Bipartisan Bill To Bring The 2nd Amendment To DC

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) along with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives on Thursday that would "restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. The text of the bill, HR 645, has not be released yet by the Government Printing Office. The bill has been sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for hearings.

According to a press release on the bill issued by Ross's office, HR 645 would:

The major provisions of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act include:

Repeal the D.C. Semiautomatic Ban. The District has restricted or banned the availability of various types of semiautomatic firearms that are widely owned throughout the United States. This repeal would allow District residents to choose for themselves the best firearms to meet their needs. The District’s current ban on fully-automatic machine guns would remain in place.

Restore the Right to Self Defense in the Home. The bill would repeal the District’s current storage law and allow gun owners to store their firearms so that they are readily available for immediate defensive purposes. It would also provide for criminal penalties when a person allows an unattended firearm to fall into the hands of minors who harm themselves or others.

Authorize Purchases of Firearms and Ammunition by D.C. Residents. Because there are not traditional gun shops in D.C. and federal law prohibits a person from purchasing handguns outside the person’s state of residence, this bill would provide more meaningful opportunities for D.C. residents to obtain the right firearms for their needs in Maryland and Virginia. It would also allow licensed dealers in D.C. to sell non-restricted ammunition.

Repeal Overly Restrictive Registration Requirement. Buying a firearm in D.C. can often take weeks and the registration fees can often cost as much as the gun itself. This bill would repeal the burdensome and very costly registration requirement and allows D.C. residents to exercise their right to bear arms without undue hindrance.

Ensure the Firearms May be Transported and Carried for Legitimate Purposes. This bill would allow a person to transport and carry firearms in prescribed manners for lawful purposes, while authorizing the D.C. City Council to implement regulations governing licensed carry and the prohibition of firearms in sensitive public places.

Ross represents the 4th District of Arkansas. He is one of the few Blue Dog Democrats to be re-elected in 2010 and is co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus. He notes in his press release that he is a Life Member of the NRA. Both he and Jordan signed the amicus brief submitted by Members of Congress supporting Heller in D.C. v Heller.

Jordan represents the 4th District of Ohio. He is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee for the 112th Congress which is the caucus of Republican conservatives. Jordan serves onthe House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending.

Ross and Jordan were rated A+ for the 2010 election cycle by the NRA Political Victory Fund and both received the NRA endorsement.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports on the bill introduced by Ross and Jordan. They think that some sort of bill will pass that will reduce the constraints imposed by the DC City Council. However, they are unsure whether a standalone bill will get through Congress and Obama.

House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is positively apoplectic in her response to this bill. From a release that her office issue:

"House Republicans revealed themselves to be hypocrites on day one of the new Congress when they stripped our residents of the federal court-approved Committee of the Whole vote," Norton said. "They won control of the House on the slogans of job creation and reducing the power of the federal government, but they have spent the first month in the majority introducing bills to usurp the local autonomy of the District of Columbia. They underestimate our residents if they think this city will tolerate autocratic rule from Congress any more than the Jordan and Ross districts would tolerate dictatorship from Congress on local matters."

UPDATE II: The full text of HR 645 is now available. It is a long bill so here is the link to the PDF of the bill.

Time For DC To Pay Up

Not only did Alan Gura have to fight the District of Columbia over the Second Amendment, now he is having to fight them in an effort to get paid for his efforts in the Heller case. The Legal Times Blog is reporting that the District of Columbia is balking over the bill submitted to the District Court by Gura. Basing his bill for fees on the prevailing market rates for complex Federal litigation, he submitted a request for $3.13 million to Judge Emmet Sullivan. This was for over 3,000 hours of billable time for six attorneys including himself.

The District has countered that they should only have to pay $722,000.

Samuel Kaplan of the District’s Office of the Attorney General argued the plaintiffs’ team had failed to prove why they should receive compensation on par with major law firms in the District. Kaplan called the gun litigation complicated but not complex, a term he reserved for class actions.

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.

It takes a lot of gall to say the premier case establishing the Second Amendment as an individual right is merely complicated but not complex which is a designation that the District's attorneys reserve for the cases brought by the bottom-dwelling plaintiff's attorneys for stuff like cigarette smoking and exposure to asbestos.

Judge Sullivan, according to this account, questioned whether he should take the District's finances into account when considering Gura's bill and how much he should be paid from the taxpayer's money. Gura countered,

telling Sullivan he (Gura) should not be (in) a position that requires him to assess the city’s budget priorities. Sullivan should base his fee ruling on an objective analysis of market rates and performance, Gura said.

My humble suggestion to Judge Sullivan is that if he doesn't want to use taxpayer money to pay Mr. Gura he should take it out of the assets and retirements of the so-called public officials who passed the handgun ban in the first place as well as those like former Mayor Adrian Fenty who kept enforcing the unconstitutional ban.

The bottom line is that it is well past time for the District of Columbia to stop being cheap bastards. You lost and we won. Now pay up.

UPDATE:  After Mark C. made the comment below, I looked up Alan Gura's motion for fees. You can find it here. It is brought under 42 USC 1988 as he surmised. If you want to know about the history of the Heller case, it is worth reading the few first pages.

Cry Me A River

Colbert King, in an op-ed in today's Washington Post, laments that the expected increase in the number of conservatives and Republicans in Congress after mid-term elections doesn't bode well for the District of Columbia's autonomy. Pardon me if I am not sympathetic especially when he writes:

What's more, a new Congress, under Republican influence, is likely to give the District more of what it doesn't want.

Expect, for example, a renewed effort to weaken D.C. gun laws and restrict the D.C. Council's regulation of firearms. Gun-rights forces tried to do that this year when they attached pro-gun language that ultimately derailed voting rights legislation. The Nov. 2 elections, if all goes as predicted, will only strengthen their hands.

I guess we should be happy that the District has been run by foolish politicians or we never would have gotten the Heller decision. Mayor Adrian Fenty's intransigence led to DC's appeal of the Court of Appeals win for Dick Heller. This, in turn, led to the Supreme Court acknowledging, finally and concretely, that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

So to assuage Mr. King's sorrow, I send him this nice rendition of "Cry Me A River" sung by Susan Boyle.