Posted on 05/08/2015 9:46:30 AM PDT by rktman
A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit challenging parts of Washington state’s new law expanding background checks on gun transfers, saying gun-rights activists couldn’t challenge it because they aren’t being prosecuted for violating it.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma ruled that opponents of the law didn’t have standing to challenge the parts of Initiative 594 that required background checks for noncommercial gun transfers. To challenge the law, the plaintiffs must show they’ve been actually prosecuted or at immediate risk of being prosecuted, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
I get irritated with the debates over standing. Only law-abiding citizens are inconvenienced by that dodge, and questions of standing push us toward far less respect for the law than a rational legal system would deserve.
I don't understand this part. We never seem to have standing.
However, environmentalists seem to have standing to sue for some bug or weed that may or may not have value to anyone. They can sue for climate change damage that might happen hundreds of years from now if their suppositions are right.
More judicial insanity.
You have to become a criminal in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law?
NONSENSE!
That's pretty much how standing
has devolved our legal system.
Well for conservative issues. For libs, just the mere intimation is cause enough.
>> A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit challenging parts of Washington state’s new law expanding background checks on gun transfers, saying gun-rights activists couldn’t challenge it because they aren’t being prosecuted for violating it.
>
> I don’t understand this part. We never seem to have standing.
You have standing only when it’s convenient.
Just like how laws are enforced [or not] when it’s convenient.
Thus the Judiciary stamps about spreading injustice and tyranny, all the while wrapping it in “the law” and demanding that it [which is their will] be respected.
> You have to become a criminal in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law?
>
> NONSENSE!
It’s exactly what I was told when I asked about challenging SD’s gun laws banning firearms in government buildings, despite their own Constitution saying:
Art 6, § 24. — Right to bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
Why can’t we the people argue that the legislators DON’T HAVE STANDING.
Nothing but legalize crap meant to corral the sheeple.
Our esteemed Congress has given environmentalists standing by law.
At least at the federal level, legislators do not have standing for most of what they have done in the past two generations:
Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hear! Hear!
You are spot on, Pollster1.
Oh - I believe that's what they do. I just think it is nonsense and not what the Founders intended.
Because the left writes their pet laws to give ordinary citizens standing to sue.
our borders, no standing
our elections, no standing
our Constitutional rights, no standing
our government answering to “US”, no standing
our courts, judges, congress, senate, white house, no standing
illegal immigrants >>>>>>> STANDING OUT THE KAZOO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.