Skip to main content

View Diary: Firearms Law and Policy - Do consumers have standing to challenge laws regulating gun sales? (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm, Article III? Let me find our annotated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Smoh

    Constitution from the Congressional Research Service.

    I think I've narrowed it down to Clause 1. Cases and Controversies. Need a little help from there.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:09:17 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  haha…you're asking a very astute question. (5+ / 0-)

      The Court has, for a very long time, decided that "case or controversy" requires an actual dispute between the parties.  I can't just, for example, sue the government because I think XYZ law is unconstitutional.  I have to actually be injured by the law in some way (prosecuted, charged a tax, etc.) in order to sue.  

      Now, this is all judge-made law.  All of it comes from the words "case or controversy."  And it isn't obvious that standing doctrine even exists at all—you'll find plenty of scholars who think it's made up garbage.  But it isn't going anywhere soon.

    •  Lawyers love Article III. (Although "soft in... (3+ / 0-)

      ... the knees" goes farther than I've ever gone ... on a constitutional law point!)

      It's the keystone of Federal court jurisdiction and it has produced all manner of cases, some actually understandable, on standing to sue, not issuing advisory opinions (in most cases), and many important doctrines most lawyers can safely forget when out of law school.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:25:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site