Tweet
I think I understand the constitutional/ legal precedent behind the standing requirement for cases but I am confused by the status quo of an arguably unconstitutional new law being the law as implemented and not the way it was before the law.
It seems to me that in instances that do not touch civil rights (e.g. cell use while driving laws, which I will say seem redundant and unnecessary) this may be acceptable but when it comes to arguably unconstitutional laws (e.g. banning guns), courts should explicitly recognize the status quo as being the state of affairs before the law was enacted as opposed to after the new legislation goes into effect. IANAL so can someone who is explain this to me?
A lot of our gun-rights problems, especially in anti-gun jurisdictions like CA, would be minimized if the logic I outline above were adhered to instead of the way courts like those in the 9CA do it now (e.g. 35 years of AWB infringements in CA while the issue is tackled in the courts).
ETA: This should probably be in National, if mods can move it great. Thanks in advance and sorry.
It seems to me that in instances that do not touch civil rights (e.g. cell use while driving laws, which I will say seem redundant and unnecessary) this may be acceptable but when it comes to arguably unconstitutional laws (e.g. banning guns), courts should explicitly recognize the status quo as being the state of affairs before the law was enacted as opposed to after the new legislation goes into effect. IANAL so can someone who is explain this to me?
A lot of our gun-rights problems, especially in anti-gun jurisdictions like CA, would be minimized if the logic I outline above were adhered to instead of the way courts like those in the 9CA do it now (e.g. 35 years of AWB infringements in CA while the issue is tackled in the courts).
ETA: This should probably be in National, if mods can move it great. Thanks in advance and sorry.
