Question of standing in NRA legal cases

DanGuy48 said:

I’m not trying to start a debate about the pros and cons of the NRA, some like them, some don’t. I strongly prefer any discussion in this thread not go that direction.

I know that in bringing court cases there is the issue of whether the person (or entity?) bringing the case has standing to do so. My understanding (IANAL) is that this means whoever is bringing the case needs to have a claim that they are directly impacted by the issue being challenged.

So, can the NRA file cases against perceived U.S. constitutional violations in a state without someone from that state being represented in that case and claiming that they are being harmed?

Click to expand...

DanGuy48 said:

I’m not trying to start a debate about the pros and cons of the NRA, some like them, some don’t. I strongly prefer any discussion in this thread not go that direction.

I know that in bringing court cases there is the issue of whether the person (or entity?) bringing the case has standing to do so. My understanding (IANAL) is that this means whoever is bringing the case needs to have a claim that they are directly impacted by the issue being challenged.

So, can the NRA file cases against perceived U.S. constitutional violations in a state without someone from that state being represented in that case and claiming that they are being harmed?

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

Just about anyone can file a case. Whether it is decided based upon its merits is a different question. If a plaintiff does not have standing, the case will be dismissed before the merits of the case are decided. There are two times when standing is assessed. The first is in the complaint, where the plaintiff needs to simply claim they are being harmed by the defendant. They then need to actually prove that the claims are true and that there was actual harm.

In your example you can't claim a state is harming you without actually being in the state. If you can't find someone in the state that is actually being harmed, what are the chances that only someone outside the state is being harmed by going to the state? Doesn't seem likely.

The actual harm is important. Five of the six Heller plaintiffs were dismissed due to standing because they did not try and register their handguns even though that law prevented new handgun registrations. The MSI lawsuit over the MD HQL was dismissed because none of the plaintiffs actually tried to obtain a HQL.

The NRA does participate in a lot of lawsuits. They usually are not the plaintiff though. They typically file amicus briefs, which provide the court with additional justification as to why the court should rule a particular way.

Click to expand...

Blacksmith101 said:

Hypothetical
If a person does not have the ability to apply because of arbitrary and capricious restrictions do they have to jump all those hurdles and actually apply before they have standing?

For example the requirements to apply by computer running a particular operating system over the internet and to pay online by credit card, neither checks nor cash (Legal tender for all debts public and private) accepted. Getting electronic fingerprints at a substantial cost, available in few locations, when ink fingerprints are in common use. Meet certain training requirements or have specific qualifying waivers when they already posses stronger nationally recognized training. With no accommodations for the handicapped.

Or could a bedridden individual with no computer and no credit card simply say I wish to buy a handgun for self defense and am denied because of the infringements imposed by the state of Maryland and the state has not offered any optional paths forward.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

The general answer is that you do need to try even if it seems impossible. Heller is a good example. The DC law prevented new handgun registrations, yet any one that did not try and register was determined to not have standing. Only Heller actually tried to apply for the handgun registration and was the only one determined to have standing to bring the case.

The MD HQL lawsuit demonstrates and example of why this is. All of the plaintiffs thought the HQL imposed too high a burden. Yet MD was willing to accept some reasonable alternatives for at least the training requirements. You never know until you try. None of them could actually prove that trying to meet the requirements would have been futile.

It certainly is theoretically possible to create an individual that can demonstrate futility. The hard part is surviving the cross examination. You need to demonstrate why no other alternative is available and that you tried to provide reasonable alternatives, but the state would not allow it. While all the plaintiffs in the HQL claimed it was futile, none of them could actually prove it.

Click to expand...

Blacksmith101 said:

Would it be enough to write a letter to the appropriate department and state that you do not have the the computer, credit card, etc. and either ask for an alternate path or suggest filling out paper forms and paying in cash etc.? Assuming they would reject the above would that grant standing? Or would someone actually have to buy a computer, get a credit card, etc. in a knowingly futile attempt to apply and actually be officially rejected?

It would seem the state could simply create an endless series of burdens and obstacles and be able to deny any civil rights they cared to deny simply because it was impossible to ever gain standing. You need a license to speak which can only be obtained by filling out and submitting a 48 page form that is only obtainable at the office of the undersecretary in Garrett County on alternate February 29ths between 12 noon and 12:10 PM and which must be filled out in purple ink in cursive and submitted in person at that issuing office.

Click to expand...