To: Redcloak
(The CA Supreme Court once denied standing to the owner of an assault weapon because the rifle itself wasnt a person!) Dang! Do you have a link for that?
But it [denying standing] wont fly in a Federal court; not even the 9th Circus.
I don't know about that, I mean look at what the USSC has done.
43 posted on
05/04/2012 8:52:49 AM PDT by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: OneWingedShark
I'll have to do some digging for that cite. I remember being shocked as I read it. It started out with a "but it would be silly to deny standing because a rifle isn't a person" tone, and then did precisely that! But like I said, that was a State court. In the several Federal challenges to local CCW policies, standing was never denied to the plaintiffs. Saying that plaintiffs weren't the National Guard would have been an easy way out for the courts; but they didn't take it. All of them allowed the cases to move forward, but found that capricious CCW policies did not violate the 2nd Amendment since CCW isn't necessary for self defense with a firearm outside the home. They all cited legal open carry as an alternative that satisfies the State's obligation under the Federal Constitution. And now that the Democrats seem determined to remove that option...
45 posted on
05/05/2012 7:32:55 PM PDT by
Redcloak
(Mitt Romney: Puttin' the "Country club" back in "Republican".)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson