Replies

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

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...;-)

From VA's site

Hhhhmmm... looks like I did read that right after all. Cool link VA, Thanks again.

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.

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)