\n<\/p>\n
In the ongoing battle over Washington, D.C.\u2019s arguably unconstitutional ban on firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, D.C. attorneys in February filed a motion to dismiss<\/a> the lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiffs don\u2019t have standing.<\/p>\n That move, in the case Wehr-Darroka v. D.C.<\/a>,<\/em> prompted the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to file an opposition<\/a> to D.C.\u2019s motion to dismiss arguing that the D.C. Circuit\u2019s precedents regarding standing in Second Amendment challenges are inconsistent with the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions as well as every other circuit court in the nation.<\/p>\n In its motion to dismiss, the D.C. government stated: \u201cUnder binding circuit precedent, a plaintiff only has standing to challenge a regulation of \u2018Arms\u2019 allegedly protected by the Second Amendment if he was threatened with prosecution for violating the regulation, or if he was in fact denied a weapon; and his standing is limited to challenging the regulation\u2019s application to that weapon in particular. The two individual Plaintiffs here have not faced prosecution or been denied an LCM.\u201d<\/p>\n FPC in its opposition filing explains how the D.C. Circuit is holding on to an outdated precedent considering standing.<\/p>\n \u201cFor too long, these outdated precedents have barred pre-enforcement Second Amendment challenges in this Circuit, only allowing cases to move forward if a litigant has been arrested, prosecuted, or singled out with specific threats or denials,\u201d the brief argues. \u201cThis precedent has effectively closed the courthouse doors to law-abiding D.C. residents seeking to vindicate their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.\u201d<\/p>\n The FPC brief further argues that the court doesn\u2019t necessarily have to follow what it called the circuit court\u2019s \u201cflawed standings.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUnder the flawed standing precedent created by the D.C. Circuit in Navegar<\/em>, Seegars<\/em>, and Parker,<\/em> the Court must grant the District\u2019s motion,\u201d the brief argues. \u201cPlaintiffs, however, note the deep flaws with that precedent and will urge the D.C. Circuit to reconsider and abandon those flawed cases. In doing so, Plaintiffs ask for nothing more than their day in court.\u201d<\/p>\n