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.
Well, I couldn't disagree with you there. I guess we differ on how much we're willing to bet that it does.
I appreciate your fairness. For those that are interested, that cite from the 9th circuit could be used to undercut the/my arguement that you don't need to be arrested to get standing to challenge a gun law because according to this court (and Dead and I both disagree with this) the 2nd amendment right that only belongs to states (milita), not their citizens. Therefore, according to the logic of this court, a citizen can not have a 2nd amendment right infringed upon by a localgun law.
This is a silly decision but it is dangerous because it's gotten to the federal court of appeals level and is binding on California and those other states in that district. The supreme court declined to review it. Hopefully this issue will be review once Bush appoints a few more conservatives to the court.