alan
Member
In 14 January, 2008 SGN, see The Knox Report, page 9. A discussion of Heller v. D.C.
Additionally, in this article, there is mention of another aspect one not all that often mentioned, but never-the-less important, that is the question of "standing", which might end up having the benefit of appellate review. Remember, Parker and others in the original suit against the D.C. gun ban were held to lack standing". When Mr. Heller's action was filed, the story changed. Seems that he actually applied for a D.C. License or Permit, which was denied, therefore he had "standing" lacked by others. Perhaps "others" should have filed some paper too, it appears that only Heller did so. Seems as if the D.C Court of Appeals treats questions of "standing" in a more than passing strange manner, one that appears quite different from how the same question is handled in other Circuits.
Also, in same issue, page 28, see Clayton Cramer on The D.C. Suit. In his article, Carmer references USSC appointments made by President Hillary Clinton, as if her election to the office of the president were a foregone conclusion. While she might be so elected, she must first be nominated, a prospect that looks ever more questionable, and then there is the question of election results. A long way to go, it seems to me.
Additionally, in this article, there is mention of another aspect one not all that often mentioned, but never-the-less important, that is the question of "standing", which might end up having the benefit of appellate review. Remember, Parker and others in the original suit against the D.C. gun ban were held to lack standing". When Mr. Heller's action was filed, the story changed. Seems that he actually applied for a D.C. License or Permit, which was denied, therefore he had "standing" lacked by others. Perhaps "others" should have filed some paper too, it appears that only Heller did so. Seems as if the D.C Court of Appeals treats questions of "standing" in a more than passing strange manner, one that appears quite different from how the same question is handled in other Circuits.
Also, in same issue, page 28, see Clayton Cramer on The D.C. Suit. In his article, Carmer references USSC appointments made by President Hillary Clinton, as if her election to the office of the president were a foregone conclusion. While she might be so elected, she must first be nominated, a prospect that looks ever more questionable, and then there is the question of election results. A long way to go, it seems to me.
Last edited:
