davidmcbeth
Banned
I assume lack of standing because they are not a real person? I think that only had the organization as the plainitff.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Heard that the sportmans association federal suit was dismissed ..
- Thread starter davidmcbeth
- Start date
Looks like the NSSF got booted for standing. Organization/Association/Third-party standing is a peculiar animal. Courts aren't too keen on letting Entity A litigate the interests of Entities B-Z.
The NSSF is a trade org, not necessarily a gun owners association. The laws they are challenging affect gun owners (you and me) and not really manufacturers (people who sell guns) since many are specifically excepted from the laws...i.e. Colt can still manufacture and export guns in/from CT.
The key is that the NSSF has to show that its members would have standing to sue in their own right. It's hard to say that an NSSF member company, like Colt for instance, could sue CT to challenge laws that are aimed at the citizens of CT. Colt doesn't exactly have 2A rights (tho maybe Citizens United expands this???? I haven't delved into this aspect.) I do understand that there is a tenuous connection between Colt's interest in increased sales and the law's taking away of CT customers.
The citizens of CT are best positioned to represent their interests...which is why the CCDL and maybe the NRA would have the kind of standing called for by the Court. Certainly, the human-named plaintiffs aren't getting booted, so this case is here to stay.
I haven't read the decision, so I am just speaking in generalities. I simply think that dismissing NSSF is a sound decision in terms of the law and not necessarily judicial bullying or giving short shrift to the NSSF's interests. It goes to show you that the lawyers representing the state of CT are not idiots. If you ask me, including NSSF at the outset may not have been the best move because such an early loss can shift the momentum of the case and distract from the REAL issue...the new law criminalizes a segment of CT's population with no benefit to society and in disregard of an enumerated right...and it was passed by an abuse of the legislative process. How can you use emergency certification to pass a law that won't go into effect for a YEAR?
NSSF should have just bankrolled the case if they wanted to participate.
The NSSF is a trade org, not necessarily a gun owners association. The laws they are challenging affect gun owners (you and me) and not really manufacturers (people who sell guns) since many are specifically excepted from the laws...i.e. Colt can still manufacture and export guns in/from CT.
The key is that the NSSF has to show that its members would have standing to sue in their own right. It's hard to say that an NSSF member company, like Colt for instance, could sue CT to challenge laws that are aimed at the citizens of CT. Colt doesn't exactly have 2A rights (tho maybe Citizens United expands this???? I haven't delved into this aspect.) I do understand that there is a tenuous connection between Colt's interest in increased sales and the law's taking away of CT customers.
The citizens of CT are best positioned to represent their interests...which is why the CCDL and maybe the NRA would have the kind of standing called for by the Court. Certainly, the human-named plaintiffs aren't getting booted, so this case is here to stay.
I haven't read the decision, so I am just speaking in generalities. I simply think that dismissing NSSF is a sound decision in terms of the law and not necessarily judicial bullying or giving short shrift to the NSSF's interests. It goes to show you that the lawyers representing the state of CT are not idiots. If you ask me, including NSSF at the outset may not have been the best move because such an early loss can shift the momentum of the case and distract from the REAL issue...the new law criminalizes a segment of CT's population with no benefit to society and in disregard of an enumerated right...and it was passed by an abuse of the legislative process. How can you use emergency certification to pass a law that won't go into effect for a YEAR?
NSSF should have just bankrolled the case if they wanted to participate.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
Certainly does raise some questions. Especially that there was recently a case regarding gun permits and where the courts ruled that a corporation can get one.
I liked this complaint's premises though; especially looking at the e-cert process. But this will be litigated in a criminal venue at some point in time.
I saw standing issues from the get-go. Wonder why NSSF lawyers did not. Could have side-stepped this avenue of attack very easily.
5 lawyers signed the complaint. Maybe too many cooks. Makes them all look like idiots though.
I still have my FOIC complaint pending regarding illegal meetings that resulted in PA13-3 as well. Another avenue of attack against our goofy legislature.
I liked this complaint's premises though; especially looking at the e-cert process. But this will be litigated in a criminal venue at some point in time.
I saw standing issues from the get-go. Wonder why NSSF lawyers did not. Could have side-stepped this avenue of attack very easily.
5 lawyers signed the complaint. Maybe too many cooks. Makes them all look like idiots though.
I still have my FOIC complaint pending regarding illegal meetings that resulted in PA13-3 as well. Another avenue of attack against our goofy legislature.
Last edited: