Standing up to the man is risky
Triggerfinger on Seegars v. Ashcroft:
Whether it is reasonable to expect someone wishing to challenge a law to face prosecution for violating that law if their challenge fails is questionable, but it is an established principle with a reasonable goal. Legislatures sometimes provide for an expedited Constitutional challenge to a questionable law, but that was not provided for in the assault weapons ban. Since most of the plaintiffs in Seegars neither owned handguns, nor sought to register them, nor carried them within the city, they did not face a credible and specific threat of prosecution.
This, I think, is why a lot of laws go unchallenged. Who wants to lose and spend years in jail? It’s also why yours truly won’t challenge the Hughes Amendment banning machine guns made after 1986 and why I wouldn’t have challenged the assault weapons ban. Apparently, I’d have to actually break the law to have a legal standing in the case and, given the courts’ rulings on second amendment issues, I’d likely lose and spend ten years in jail. Not a risk a family man would take.
Stay tuned to Triggerfinger for updates on the case.
