And two stupid ones. The Volokh Conspiracy mentioned the fact that the D.C. Circuit Court made their decision available on the 2nd Amendment Case before them... and totally ducked the issue. I admit it intrigued me, so I read the opinions. I am personally outraged by it! To follow is my opinion of the decision from the perspective of someone who only took a single class in business law in college (please read that as a standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer).

Several citizens of the District of Columbia brought suit challenging a law which prevented them from registering a pistol in the district, and requiring all other firearms in their ownership (properly registered) be either disassembled, or have a trigger lock. They challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. The court in a 2-1 decision decided not to rule on the matters of fact because they found the plaintiffs had no standing to bring suit. It is well worth the time to read the opinion to see the sort of idiotic reasoning that judges can make. Please tell me they don't have lifetime appointments.

The opinion sites several prior cases and precedents (all very reasonable, and by my thinking very applicable) as to why these plaintiffs have standing. They then choose one very specific case that they say is controlling, and because they don't meet the criteria brought by that case, they reject the appeal. This is the worst form of cop out.

After reading the entire opinion, I'm left with the following. If you have not actually been arrested for a crime, then you can only challenge the statute if you are specifically told by a prosecutor that you will be charged in the future. That means that you would have to break the law, risk prosecution, and then challenge the law and pray that the challenge is upheld. The one case they site as controlling (Navegar, Inc. v. United States) seemingly requires that in order to meet the standard for fear or imminent prosecution, the plaintiffs would have to be named in the statute itself! Excuse me?! Of course they say this is really no problem because prosecutors haven't named these particular defendants, So they obviously have nothing to fear. I'm sure that makes them feel so much better.

What is shocking is they mention the most applicable case in their opinion, and then shun it:

When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he should not
be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.

What's more, after reading the majority opinion, you are left with the impression that there is both a hierarchy of importance in Constitutional Amendments, and also that some laws are more important than others. The one glimmer of hope, not that it does much good, is Circuit Judge Sentelle's dissenting opinion which is clear and just makes sense.

The only difference between that harm and the harm alleged in this case is that there it was to First Amendment interests, here to Second. I know of no hierarchy of Bill of Rights protections that dictates different standing analysis.

To say that some laws are more important than others, orthat some amendments are more important than others is dangerous at best. Saying that there is no standing because there is no imminent danger of prosecution, or because prosecutions of a particular statute is rare tells the general populous that breaking a law should hold no stigma. They are basically telling us that people can choose which laws they want to follow, and which ones just aren't important. Hello! That's what makes people criminals... but now a court is telling us it's ok to do that. To say that people aren't allowed to question or challenge a law without breaking it first is an afront to law abiding citizens everywhere.