Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Article on Federalization of the National Guard | Main | Defensive gun use blog »

Seegers challenge to DC law

Posted by David Hardy · 9 April 2005 09:15 PM

Steve Halbrook's motion for rehearing in the Seegers case is online here in .pdf. The DC Circuit had held his appellants had no "standing" to challenge the DC gun law since they were not being prosecuted and had not show a realistic threat of prosecution (which requires a lot more than the fact that it's against the law).

I've said before that the funny thing about standing is that if the courts like cases of your type you almost always have it, and if they don't, you don't. I suppose there is some deep legal reason for that strange coincidence, but I haven't yet discerned it.

Steve makes the points that applying the standing requirement in this way essentially cuts off law-abiding citizens from the courts, and that courts should encourage citizens to work out legal issues through the legal system rather than telling them to go out and break the law if they want a ruling.

Makes sense to me, altho I suspect the DC Circuit won't change its mind. Standing is a very convenient "dump button" to avoid ruling in a case where the result might be undesirable to the court.

· contemporary issues

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Mark Robinson | April 11, 2005 3:30 PM | Reply

I have no idea what the NRA was doing with this case. The case is a circus, they named everyone, even those that are not direct parties. This almost looks like a ego trip for the NRA. It appears to be clumsy attempt to short circuit Parker and it is creating a mess. Looks like the NRA-ILA is another lobby fighting for it's survival.

Mark

Leave a comment