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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Another "this is pitiful moment" | Main | Yet another this is pitiful moment »

Seegers v. Gonzales cert decision coming

Posted by David Hardy · 17 January 2006 11:15 AM

The Surpeme Court's docket indicates that the Seegers petition for cert. is up for vote at the conference this Friday.

The issue is whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the DC handgun ban, absent their prosecution under it. A pdf file of the petition for cert. is available on Steve Halbrook's webpage.

(Standing to sue, absent prosecution, is one of the more remarkably messed up areas of the law. You'd think it'd be enough to prove that you want to do something, a criminal law forbids it, and you can argue the law is unconstitutional. But it never works out that simply, and there are cases (a) saying you never, or rarely, have standing absent at least a one-on-one clear threat to prosecute if you do it, and (b) cases allowing suit where there is no such threat, and indeed where the law in question has never been enforced).

· Supreme Court caselaw

1 Comment | Leave a comment

King of the Cows | January 18, 2006 7:51 AM | Reply

I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to get involved in this one. Denying cert is a good way to let them avoid the issue as they have in the past.

Leave a comment