“[I]t is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment is entered for the plaintiffs,” Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia instructed Dec. 30. “The Court DECLARES that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule titled Bump-Stock-Type Devices… was issued in excess of ATF’s statutory authority and is therefore unlawful.”
To paraphrase the hit song title from the last century, what a difference a judge and a president make. Friedrich, nominated to the court in 2017 by President Donald Trump, replaced Judge Reggie Walton, a 2001 George W. Bush nominee. In 2004, Walton rejected a challenge to the District’s gun ban and ruled the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.
Now with Friedrich’s orders, a complaint filed five years ago by attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck on behalf of plaintiffs Owen Monroe, Scott Heuman and this correspondent — with my property surrendered to me by ATF in August — comes almost to a close.
I say “almost” because there are two more issues:
“The plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,” Judge Friedrich declared.
And importantly:
It is ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file any motion for attorney’s fees on or before January 29, 2025.
That’s significant because, as individuals seeking redress from government abuses, citizens must pit their limited means against the virtually unlimited legal war chest of the state. In this case, private attorneys fighting for principle were putting in time and effort that could have been spent in lucrative legal pursuits, and covering their costs seems the least the offending party could do—even though time and again the government has filed motions opposing attorney fees and costs.
That makes it all the more arrogantly offensive to see how bullying Department of Justice lawyers, all making six-figure salaries with generous benefits have, in the past, disparaged the motives of and publicly insulted the integrity of citizens forced to resolve denial of their rights in court. In a footnote to another Second Amendment-related complaint, U.S. Attorneys wrote:
“Plaintiff has represented himself in FOIA litigation previously…and is currently representing other plaintiffs in separate FOIA litigation against ATF pending before this Court… Plaintiff would be barred from recovering fees had he represented himself in this case… so he retained attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck. Mr. Stamboulieh submitted a declaration in support of the attorney’s fee request in the Codrea litigation… and he is currently representing one of the Codrea plaintiffs in yet another FOIA suit against ATF, Savage v. ATF … In short, there is a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists and their efforts to recover fees through largely unsuccessful FOIA litigation.”
So, they refuse to produce information required by law, use every trick in the book to stonewall and deny, draw on their virtually unlimited legal resources paid for by the people trying to get justice, and drag things on for years in court. And we supposedly put up with it because we’re motivated with the prospect of our attorneys finally recouping some of their expenses, maybe, after years of banging our heads against a seemingly impenetrable wall.
In a just and rational system, such allegations would be slapped down as fraud upon the court, and with the impugning of motives, as libel.
We’ll see how ATF responds to the order, embedded below, to pay costs, and we’ll see if they start behaving any differently under the new administration.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
