[OneWingedShark]

(The CA Supreme Court once denied standing to the owner of an “assault” weapon because the rifle itself wasn’t a person!)

Dang! Do you have a link for that?

But it [denying standing] won’t fly in a Federal court; not even the 9th Circus.

I don't know about that, I mean look at what the USSC has done.

[Redcloak]

I'll have to do some digging for that cite. I remember being shocked as I read it. It started out with a "but it would be silly to deny standing because a rifle isn't a person" tone, and then did precisely that! But like I said, that was a State court. In the several Federal challenges to local CCW policies, standing was never denied to the plaintiffs. Saying that plaintiffs weren't the National Guard would have been an easy way out for the courts; but they didn't take it. All of them allowed the cases to move forward, but found that capricious CCW policies did not violate the 2nd Amendment since CCW isn't necessary for self defense with a firearm outside the home. They all cited legal open carry as an alternative that satisfies the State's obligation under the Federal Constitution. And now that the Democrats seem determined to remove that option...