thoughts on another aspect of Heller

[alan]

Just a thought on Parker v.D.C., now Heller v. D.C.

As memory serves, there were, at one time, 6 or so complainants including Ms. Parker, Mr. Heller and 4 or so others. All excepting Heller were dismissed, having been found to "lack standing", an issue that seemingly revolved about their not having been actually impacted by the D.C. law, whereas Heller, had actually filed application for license/permit to keep his "work gun" at home. Said application was denied, ergo he and or his complaint had "standing".

I wonder as to how much stronger our case might have been, and it might well be strong enough, I certainly so hope, had the others actually submitted some "paper work", which no doubt would have been denied. They then, having been "impacted", might have had possession of that most strange of all creatures, "standing". I wonder as to this aspect of the thing.

 

[Hypnogator]

I'm concerned about the "standing" ruling, myself. Before "shall issue" laws, it was common practice in some law enforcement organizations to never have any CW application forms. That way, they could always say, "We're out of forms, come back when we have some." Of course, they didn't ever order any, but they never "denied" anyone, either. It seems to me that if DC had simply ignored Heller's application instead of rejecting it, that he wouldn't have had "standing" to sue, either. An automatic win for the prohibitionists.