▲ | mothballed 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Even better, if they wait long enough between selections or only do minimal enforcement, then no one has any standing to challenge it (Knife Rights v Garland) even on constitutional grounds.
(key word here, regularly enforced against others)So if you think the law is bullshit the judge can just say you probably won't be prosecuted so you have no imminent fear of prosecution and you can't challenge it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | TimTheTinker 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The court's opinion in Knife Rights v Garland upheld a prior opinion where a "credible threat of prosecution" was interpreted to mean that a prosecution had occurred within the last 10 years. So if a single prosecution (including your own) under the relevant section occurred at any time in the decade prior, that's likely enough to argue standing to challenge that section, provided the other tests of standing are met. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|