And another thing that made me angry

Thinking back to the dark ages of the ‘94 Assault Weapon ban today reminded me of some other things that upset me at the time. There were numerous court challenges to the law. One of the most frustrating things about the disposition of these cases were that the government would say, in essence, “We haven’t prosecuted anyone under this law so you don’t have standing to challenge it.” I recall (but cannot find a quote) Attorney General Janet “Butcher of Waco” Reno saying that they had no intent of enforcing the law either. Hence the courts dismissed the challenges. Here is one such case.

My interpretation of it was that this they knew they would lose in court and were deliberately preventing us from proving they had overstepped their Constitutional limits.

2 thoughts on “And another thing that made me angry

  1. I’ve never understood why you have to have someone persecuted (prosecuted?) under a bad law to have standing to challenge it. If your law is shit, why wait until someone is under the wheels before questioning its validity?

    • Because courts like to have all kinds of rules set up to protect the government, and reduce their workload. I mean, could you imagine and schlub just off an challenging a law? The HORROR!

Comments are closed.