SAF awarded $1M+ in historic Heller case

[aray]

The Second Amendment Foundation, which spearheaded the Heller v. District of Columbia case to the Supreme Court, and which established for the first time ever that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not to militia = National Guard, has won a follow-up lawsuit for $1M in legal fees:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/29/dc-ordered-to-pay-1m-in-historic-gun-case/?test=latestnews

Now that the 2A has been established as a "fundamental civil right" (like the 1A) plaintiffs can sue the defendants and recover court costs if successful in the original suit. This should, over time, make state & local governments more cautious in limiting 2A freedoms. Now, besides being overturned, it may cost them real money to boot.

[John222]

The Second Amendment Foundation, which spearheaded the Heller v. District of Columbia case to the Supreme Court, and which established for the first time ever that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not to militia = National Guard, has won a follow-up lawsuit for $1M in legal fees:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/29/dc-ordered-to-pay-1m-in-historic-gun-case/?test=latestnews

Now that the 2A has been established as a "fundamental civil right" (like the 1A) plaintiffs can sue the defendants and recover court costs if successful in the original suit. This should, over time, make state & local governments more cautious in limiting 2A freedoms. Now, besides being overturned, it may cost them real money to boot.

Actually, it cost us money. That's our tax money. And it won't teach them anything because it's not their money.

[jeffe007]

John222 -quote-(Actually, it cost us money. That's our tax money. And it won't teach them anything because it's not their money.)-endquote

he's right..............

[HDoc]

The Second Amendment Foundation, which spearheaded the Heller v. District of Columbia case to the Supreme Court, and which established for the first time ever that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not to militia = National Guard, has won a follow-up lawsuit for $1M in legal fees:
Now that the 2A has been established as a "fundamental civil right" (like the 1A) plaintiffs can sue the defendants and recover court costs if successful in the original suit. This should, over time, make state & local governments more cautious in limiting 2A freedoms. Now, besides being overturned, it may cost them real money to boot.
This resolution made me wonder about the CC law in CT. Two cities, New Britain and New London have a blanket ban on CC. When I renewed my permit recently, a big deal was made about not bringing in a weapon to these areas. Do you think that that Heller will negate these absurd laws?

[muggsy]

Actually, it cost us money. That's our tax money. And it won't teach them anything because it's not their money.

This is true, but it gives the politicians less money to steal and the money is returned to the good guys.

[John222]

This is true, but it gives the politicians less money to steal and the money is returned to the good guys.


The only people making money are the lawyers.

[tv_racin_fan]

This is true, but it gives the politicians less money to steal and the money is returned to the good guys.

It does no such thing, in fact it may well give the politicians cause to raise taxes and take even more from the sheeple.

[OldLincoln]

Oh, I don't know. I'm glad the foundation got the money to help pay for the next case. Lot's of stuff comes out of our tax money and while the feds may not blink at it, perhaps downtown broke city will. If it happened enough the gun folks might have the funding to make it a slam dunk thing and the smaller governments wouldn't fight it much.

[aray]

So two issues from the above discussion:

First I absolutely acknowledge that all dollars spent by state & local governments are siphoned out of our pockets as taxpayers, so ultimately we pay for everything, including the ineptitude of our elected officials. If I was inarticulate & inadvertently sent any other message I apologize for my lack of clarity.

What I was trying to convey was that governments do have budgets, and high legal bills that they can avoid are something that history has shown they try to do, especially if there is a likelihood that they will lose. Look how they tremble, for example, at a demand letter from the ACLU over some real or even perceived infraction on free speech or religious entanglement. They typically fold like a house of cards, and the reason is they’re liable for expensive legal fees if they lose. So they tend to be very cautious about actions they take that blow a big hole in their budget. Is that true 100%? Of course not. But we’ve all seen this principle in action many times.

By elevating the Second Amendment, for the first time, to a “fundamental civil right” the Supreme Court now allows those same damages that already apply in other fundamental civil rights areas to apply to gun rights as well.

As for the question on concealed carry, the answer is: not yet.

Heller was groundbreaking in that it said, for the very first time:
* The 2A applies to individuals, not to state national guards or something like that
* It is a fundamental civil right
* The right to keep arms cannot be prohibited

But Heller applied only to the District of Columbia. Chicago Illinois said Heller didn’t apply to them since DC is not a state. So in the follow-up McDonald decision, the Supreme Court added:
* And oh yes it applies to the states as well

Left unresolved is “to keep AND BEAR arms”. Both DC and Chicago had a 100% total ban on gun ownership. As a rule the Supreme Court typically only, and narrowly, answers questions it was asked. In Heller and McDonald it was only asked to answer the question: Can governments absolutely prohibit all gun ownership by law abiding individuals? The Supreme Court answered: no they can’t.

Heller and McDonald were not about CC or anything outside of gun ownership for individual self defense in the home. We’ll need another case (or cases) to come before them to address the expanded list of rights questions, and several are working their way through the lower federal court levels right now. They passed on hearing one of the two possible cases from Maryland just recently, but others are working their way up.

And not to hijack my own thread, but a hat tip to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The NRA is great on Congressional lobbying for gun rights but had typically been timid about taking 2A cases up to the Supreme Court. The very few that had ever been up there (e.g. sawed off shotguns) had not gone well for us so precedence was not on our side. Heller & McDonald were ONLY 5 to 4 decisions, and with a one vote swing the SCOTUS could easily have ruled that no, the 2A does NOT apply to individuals, “a well regulated militia” means state national guards, and all states are free to remove all gun rights from all individuals if they chose to do so. The NRA, knowing that this was razor thin and of uncertain outcome, was content to leave well enough along and concentrate on actions in the Legislative Branch of government where they have been historically more successful. But when the SAF boldly forced the issue in Heller and McDonald, the NRA realized that this was a high stakes gamble to win it all or lose it all, and joined the lawsuits on the same side as the SAF. Indeed the NRA’s arguments in front of the court complemented the SAF well, and the SCOTUS quoted from both sets of arguments in their rulings, so all worked out well. But kudos to the SAF for having the courage and the legal powerhouse team (Alan Gura et al) to push this forward. FYI: http://www.saf.org/ (http://www.saf.org/) - on their home page you can see a more complete list of the ongoing lawsuits they are filing to continue to expand gun rights across the nation in federal court. Think of the SAF as the ACLU for the good guys in the area of gun rights.

[John222]

Oh, I don't know. I'm glad the foundation got the money to help pay for the next case. Lot's of stuff comes out of our tax money and while the feds may not blink at it, perhaps downtown broke city will. If it happened enough the gun folks might have the funding to make it a slam dunk thing and the smaller governments wouldn't fight it much.


History has shown us that the government will not think twice about wasting money on frivolous lawsuits. Look at the house of reps funding, with our tax dollars, the lawsuit to keep the defense of marriage act. The attorney general won't defend the DOM law because he know it's not defendable. And so do the house conservatives. But thats nots stopping them from spending our money to put on a show for evangelical christians.

Local governments are even worst, they know it's extremely difficult for an individual to fight their lawyers which are supported by unlimited tax dollars.

[HDoc]

So two issues from the above discussion:
Heller and McDonald were not about CC or anything outside of gun ownership for individual self defense in the home. We’ll need another case (or cases) to come before them to address the expanded list of rights questions, and several are working their way through the lower federal court levels right now. They passed on hearing one of the two possible cases from Maryland just recently, but others are working their way up.
.

Thanks for that info, it clears up the totality of the case. It is progress however, and case law has a way of creeping outside the boundaries of the original law.

[Mr_D]

Look how they tremble, for example, at a demand letter from the ACLU over some real or even perceived infraction on free speech or religious entanglement. They typically fold like a house of cards, and the reason is they’re liable for expensive legal fees if they lose. So they tend to be very cautious about actions they take that blow a big hole in their budget. Is that true 100%? Of course not. But we’ve all seen this principle in action many times.Since the ACLU says they protect the Constitution I'm waiting for them to step in and back the 2nd Amendment now like they do the 1st!!

[muggsy]

The only people making money are the lawyers.

They gotta eat, too.

[muggsy]

So two issues from the above discussion:

First I absolutely acknowledge that all dollars spent by state & local governments are siphoned out of our pockets as taxpayers, so ultimately we pay for everything, including the ineptitude of our elected officials. If I was inarticulate & inadvertently sent any other message I apologize for my lack of clarity.

What I was trying to convey was that governments do have budgets, and high legal bills that they can avoid are something that history has shown they try to do, especially if there is a likelihood that they will lose. Look how they tremble, for example, at a demand letter from the ACLU over some real or even perceived infraction on free speech or religious entanglement. They typically fold like a house of cards, and the reason is they’re liable for expensive legal fees if they lose. So they tend to be very cautious about actions they take that blow a big hole in their budget. Is that true 100%? Of course not. But we’ve all seen this principle in action many times.

By elevating the Second Amendment, for the first time, to a “fundamental civil right” the Supreme Court now allows those same damages that already apply in other fundamental civil rights areas to apply to gun rights as well.

As for the question on concealed carry, the answer is: not yet.

Heller was groundbreaking in that it said, for the very first time:
* The 2A applies to individuals, not to state national guards or something like that
* It is a fundamental civil right
* The right to keep arms cannot be prohibited

But Heller applied only to the District of Columbia. Chicago Illinois said Heller didn’t apply to them since DC is not a state. So in the follow-up McDonald decision, the Supreme Court added:
* And oh yes it applies to the states as well

Left unresolved is “to keep AND BEAR arms”. Both DC and Chicago had a 100% total ban on gun ownership. As a rule the Supreme Court typically only, and narrowly, answers questions it was asked. In Heller and McDonald it was only asked to answer the question: Can governments absolutely prohibit all gun ownership by law abiding individuals? The Supreme Court answered: no they can’t.

Heller and McDonald were not about CC or anything outside of gun ownership for individual self defense in the home. We’ll need another case (or cases) to come before them to address the expanded list of rights questions, and several are working their way through the lower federal court levels right now. They passed on hearing one of the two possible cases from Maryland just recently, but others are working their way up.

And not to hijack my own thread, but a hat tip to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The NRA is great on Congressional lobbying for gun rights but had typically been timid about taking 2A cases up to the Supreme Court. The very few that had ever been up there (e.g. sawed off shotguns) had not gone well for us so precedence was not on our side. Heller & McDonald were ONLY 5 to 4 decisions, and with a one vote swing the SCOTUS could easily have ruled that no, the 2A does NOT apply to individuals, “a well regulated militia” means state national guards, and all states are free to remove all gun rights from all individuals if they chose to do so. The NRA, knowing that this was razor thin and of uncertain outcome, was content to leave well enough along and concentrate on actions in the Legislative Branch of government where they have been historically more successful. But when the SAF boldly forced the issue in Heller and McDonald, the NRA realized that this was a high stakes gamble to win it all or lose it all, and joined the lawsuits on the same side as the SAF. Indeed the NRA’s arguments in front of the court complemented the SAF well, and the SCOTUS quoted from both sets of arguments in their rulings, so all worked out well. But kudos to the SAF for having the courage and the legal powerhouse team (Alan Gura et al) to push this forward. FYI: http://www.saf.org/ (http://www.saf.org/) - on their home page you can see a more complete list of the ongoing lawsuits they are filing to continue to expand gun rights across the nation in federal court. Think of the SAF as the ACLU for the good guys in the area of gun rights.

I call it a win for the people, the Second Amendment and our Founding Fathers.

[tv_racin_fan]

How exactly is the SAF being awarded a million tax payer dollars a win for the tax payer?

[ltxi]

It isn't financially. What it is is a win for 2A rights. We just get to pay for the win against our own government's campaign against we the people.

[yqtszhj]

This resolution made me wonder about the CC law in CT. Two cities, New Britain and New London have a blanket ban on CC. When I renewed my permit recently, a big deal was made about not bringing in a weapon to these areas. Do you think that that Heller will negate these absurd laws?

The state can fix that. In my state the law is written that only the state can make changes to the CC law and no city or county can pass a law or ordinance that would ban CC. CC Permits are issued by the Sheriff's office for each county and that office can issue or refuse to issue a permit even if you pass a background check. For example if the sheriff's office knows that they get a lot of calls to your residence for alcohol or domestic issues they may not issue a permit. It's up to the sheriff.

But my state if backwards in the opinion of most of the country so.....