I’m still looking for the cite that claims Parker is about standing, I thought it was mentioned in scotusblog.com, but I can’t find it. It’s my understanding that Parker and others, and the questions that they raised were stripped out of the case due to the lack of standing when the case was appealed to the supremes, hence the case is called something like DC .v Heller now.

I may be a half dead zombie due to trying to do a week’s worth of work in 3 days, but I’m pretty sure we had something out in comments here over the standing issue (where I recall it went slightly off topic and I got pwnd due to your superior rate of fire)

As to Parker, I don’t see how it could be off the docket without having been denied cert, assuming it was appealed in the first place. Perhaps we’re discussing semantics, i.e., the Supremes certified some issues raised by Parker/Heller for review, while passing on others.

…I really don’t like the fact that the terminology drags in the “state-regulated militia.” They completely fail to pose the question relative to “the right of the people.”

That’s fucking “standing” for you. Perhaps Xrlq is really right and “standing” isn’t utter crap. But it’s at least crap a significant portion of the time.

While Heller made it, it seems that Parker has been split off and is challenging the strictly narrow legalese standard mischief that keeps valid cases from even needing to see if they will be granted cert.

Parker has nether been denied cert, nor has been placed on the supreme’s docket.

The language seems to say…“Militias, Militias, we don’t need no stinkin’ Malitias.”

in other words.

Does the word Militia mean squat in ref the 2A…the wording suggests no.

ed note: no need to bold the whole thing.

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2007/11/and-so-it-begins.html

I’m impressed. I had fully expected them to dodge, weave, duck, cover, avoid, evade, and weasel their way out of precisely that point.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

Thats from SCOTUSblog.

I really don’t like the fact that the terminology drags in the “state-regulated militia.” They completely fail to pose the question relative to “the right of the people.”