Posted on 12/17/2001 2:33:37 AM PST by LibertyRocks
Well, the question isn't really hard to understand. What it requires essentially is you remember what you did about 3 posts (to me) ago. You cut and pasted to me something I posted earlier. You appeared to be trying to make some vague point. I, in term, asked whether you agreed with that statement of mine. After that I seemed to have lost you. Are you back yet?
You already think I'm an idiot(for being a Libertarian), so please indulge me. Everything I have read to this point declares contrary to your statement. Can you point me to a link? I really would like to know.
If you are talking about the "petitioning for redress of grievences", the last few times that has been tried have failed miserably. All the petitions sent to Congress on RKBA issues have been apparently ignored if the current state of the laws is any indicator. Congress can ignore us, however a Constitutional Challenge before the Supremes will not be.
You are indeed having a difficult time. This link should be (I hope) a simple enough definition of 'standing'.
Need I point out that most of those in need of a gun that would meet this definition, but by law can't... are probably dead now. Abstractions, such a questioning the Constitutional Validity of a law before harm can be proven, are automaticly discarded as not rising to this level.
This guy in Colorado can now say he meets the Standing requirements and challenge the law before the Supremes DUE TO HIS ARREST. Without that, he would have no case under these criteria.
Thanks Va. I appreciate the info even if I took a different spin on it after reading it. Do you know of any case law that I could look into to see if anyone has mustered a successful challenge with a Standing as you described it? Just a link to point me in the right direction would be helpful, I really don't want you to feel that I have you doing my leg work for me. I just don't know where to start looking. Gimme a push...;-)
Hhhhmmm... looks like I did read that right after all. Cool link VA, Thanks again.
Well, I didn't want to leave anyone with the idea that people who are arrested don't have standing; nor did I want anyone to think that standing is the only way to obtain standing. The test for standing is quite well established in law.
Thanks Va. I appreciate the info even if I took a different spin on it after reading it. Do you know of any case law that I could look into to see if anyone has mustered a successful challenge with a Standing as you described it? Just a link to point me in the right direction would be helpful, I really don't want you to feel that I have you doing my leg work for me. I just don't know where to start looking. Gimme a push...;-)
Well, interestingly enough, there is a case involving gun rights. Its on out of California. I provide you this link at the risk of you using this case to undercut my arguement. It doesn't, however it wouldn't be fair if I didn't point you to it and see what you think (by the way, I completely disagree with this case, but the TEST for standing is correctly stated (but not correctly applied)).
HICKMAN v BLOCK (Scroll down to part II for the standing discussion)
Well, the question isn't really hard to understand. What it requires essentially is you remember what you did about 3 posts (to me) ago. You cut and pasted to me something I posted earlier. You appeared to be trying to make some vague point. I, in term, asked whether you agreed with that statement of mine. After that I seemed to have lost you. Are you back yet?
Never been gone.
I remember that 'thug' post well. I made a clear point, disagreeing with you about it, then YOU got weird, and started playing these games.
Why don't you repost what you think is vague, and where you got lost. -- I'll be glad to help once I know your problems. Trust me.
It would be a little weird for me to repost my post that you quoted. What make you think I got lost? I presumed you understood my thug comment in its original context?
What difference does it make? With a gazillion un- or extra-constitutional laws already on the books, what's a few thousand more? They're all enforced selectively, anyway. Our Kings and Queens ("public servants" [barf]) as well as the elite ruling class are not bound by these pesty statutes -- only us common folk.
I admire the people who will use civil disobedience or any type of disobediance, in their protest of unconstitutional laws, more than anyone on the planet. They are the true heroes -- as were our Founding Fathers.
Clarify what you are unhappy about, or don't, makes no difference to me. -- Comprende?
You just made one.
Yeah.
No, not at all. I am flattered, as always, that you chose to cite my own words. Makes me realize I am getting through to you.
huh? I'll have what you and Tpaine are drinking.
Still, I don't think this guy in Colorado had even that much of a reason for his injunctive relief request. He was just a guy who wanted to carry a gun and was tired of the GodGov telling him he couldn't. That directly set against our 2A.
His methodology may be unorthodox, but I won't quibble if it produces the desired result.
From VA's link:
This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court.
It seems a little odd to consider the "orthodox" methodology to be the one that has never worked.
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.