jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Caetano didn't have a license and possessed a stun-gun for self-defense...AND was ARRESTED for that. The arrest created the damage/injury needed for the SCOTUS to consider the case. It was a damage upon her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense. If someone isn't going to do that with the semi-autos, we'll have to wait until there's enough circuit court splits for them to hear a case. They MAY take the Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois case, as the plaintiffs there have in their possess those types of weapons for self-defense. But, they also possess FOID cards and licenses(contracts), so those may be the deciding factor in the SCOTUS not taking the case. They won't take the Mass case because they WANT to possess those types of weapons and don't possess them for self-defense.
The issue you are talking about is related to standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
In all of the 2A cases that SCOTUS has held all of the petitioners have standing to bring the case. They would have already denied cert if they believed that was an issue.
Standing is an issue in the MD HQL case, but that is currently in the 4th circuit.
Last edited: