Here it comes ...

[Spats McGee]

It's my understanding that "standing" is not in the constitution or the bill of rights and the courts pretty much just made it up . If a law is unconstitutional doesn't everyone have standing ? The idea one needs to be harmed by such a thing first is absurd IMHO .

That aside doesn't the law it self give the standing you believe is not there . That's the whole point of these types of laws - yes/no?

I don't think the Constitution specifically mentions "standing," but that does not mean that the courts "pretty much just made it up." From the Legal Information Institute:

Standing in State Court
A state's statutes will determine what constitutes standing in that particular state's courts. These typically revolve around the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

On the federal level, it's rooted in part in the language of Article III of the Constitution. Specifically, Section 2. I'll underline the relevant parts:

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of all of the State constitutions. The federal constitution, though, limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases or controversies." If there's no case or controversy, then the court does not have jurisdiction. If the court were to rule on the constitutionality of a law in the absence of an actual case or controversy, that would be an advisory opinion, and would infringe on the legislative power, which is delegated to Congress. If there is a case or controversy, then at least one party alleges some kind of injury. That injury is part of what gives that party standing to bring suit.

 

[cdoc42]

I'm a bit late in following this thread but I will offer the following in response to Metal god's statement above:

"I'll concede there is an element of deterrence but there is nothing preventing anyone from breaking a law . We need not look any farther then our over crowded jails and prisons . If they prevented crime we wouldn't have crime ??"

Prevention is a 100% expectation; deterrence is hopefully less than that, taking advantage of whatever you can to interfere with negativity in human nature. As stated by, I believe, 44AMP, one cannot accurately determine how many potential crimes are not committed due to the deterrent factor.

But I think we have some sense of that since the police were defunded. With the threat of arrest and subsequent prosecution eliminated by the reduction in police presence, we saw an increase in crime. From that, we can retroactively extrapolate the deterrence factor.

 

[44 AMP]

From that, we can retroactively extrapolate the deterrence factor.

In general terms I agree but I think its not quite something as simple as to be reduced to a calculated percentage.

What prevents a would be criminal is their belief that they will be caught and that there will be punishment they do not wish to endure. When either of those is less than 100% they will act on their baser desires.

For example, there are people who don't really care if they do get caught, because doing jail time is not a tremendous hardship for them, and in certain circles actually increases their prestige as criminals.

The reduction of police simply provides them with a safer "work environment".

How do you separate the deterrence factor out of the increase in crimes due to defunding the police? Can you count the people who were NOT commiting criminal acts, but now are from the people who already were committing such acts and now, thanks to the decrease in police have now increased their criminal activity?

THose people were not deterred before, and the reduction of police has emboldened them.

There's a lot more at work here than any one single factor and looking at only one factor and deciding that is the cause of the entire situation is, I believe, a fallacy.

 

[cdoc42]

44 AMP, I don't know how else to quantify the success of a proposed solution. If we increase the police force, it never deters crime 100% but hopefully causes a reduction that can be measured. It's impossible to assess how many were deterred.

What we've seen is an increase in crime, especially in Blue cities where the police were defunded. As the previously deterred offenders observe the success of the miscreants, they join the fracas.

That we can't measure the degree of deterrence is why I believe it is untrue that the death penalty is not a deterrent and should be utilized as a solution to the gun crime problem.

 

[Metal god]

What does LEO stand for ? I know it doesn’t stand for crime deterrent force . I stand by my belief that laws are designed to allow the government to punish the citizens not to deter criminals from breaking them . I also believe my original point is valid which is explaining that fact to pro gun control people is where the argument should start .

 

[44 AMP]

I stand by my belief that laws are designed to allow the government to punish the citizens not to deter criminals from breaking them .

I think you're missing the point. The laws provide for punishment, and it is the fear of that punishment that provides deterrence.

When people "knew" that if they commit murder and get caught they will be hung, or shot, or electrocuted or go to the gas chamber and be executed, some people will not do the crime. Others still will, believing they won't be caught...

When the death penalty was a sure, and certain thing, and when it was carried out relatively soon after conviction (and not 20some years down the road after endless rounds of appeals) I believe that had an effect, one that was different from what we have today.

Unfortunately, that effect is not something we can measure and put into numbers and use in any argument.

Many people argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, (and by extension other punishments are also not a deterrent) and they are not entirely wrong, just as they are not entirely right, either.

Nothing is a 100% deterrent. Some people will always do the crime, believing they will get away with it. We can count their crimes. We cannot count crimes that are not committed, and without numbers, we are at a disadvantage in a numbers based argument.

One thing I am convinced of, the death penalty has proven 100% effective in "deterring" REPEAT OFFENDERS!

 

[Doc Intrepid]

You're correct that no one can prove a negative.

But "Deterrence" can be quantified within boundaries that are measurable.

Social scientists can (and have) looked at small-N studies of phenomena such as the "casual overt shoplifting" plaguing drugstores in San Francisco, and the mass event "Smash & Grab" incidents in Los Angeles.

Since they formerly did not occur, and after prosecutors were elected who stated they would no longer prosecute such crimes these types of crimes began to occur frequently, a cause and effect relationship can be identified suggesting that 'whatever deterrent effect the criminal justice system formerly provided, it's absence allowed the criminal behavior to flourish'.

Deterrence clearly worked previously, and its absence just as clearly resulted in 'breakdown in social order'. It may be difficult to quantify in terms of individuals who were previously prevented from behaving in this manner, however, some measure of cause and effect is currently possible.

(It will be interesting to see if crime rates change if DA Gascon gets recalled or otherwise is replaced...)

 

[Metal god]

No you are missing the point and I know this because the point was mine , I brought this topic up . This was never meant to be a great philosophical debate . This is and has always been ( in my mind ) about anti’s thinking putting more laws on the books is going to some how stop people from shooting other people . Again I stand by my original point , adding new laws will not stop anyone from breaking that law if they choose not to follow it . It may be a deterrent but laws stop nothing . As far as I can tell gun control advocates think passing new laws will actually prevent gun relared crime and they are wrong .

So as I said which started us down this road . We pro gun folks should help explain to anti gun people new gun laws don’t prevent anything so stop writing new laws .

 

[44 AMP]

We pro gun folks should help explain to anti gun people new gun laws don’t prevent anything so stop writing new laws .

OK, I get your point, and it is a valid one, but....

Explaining reality to people who don't want to listen (or worse, don't care) seldom works.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.."

This old saying is very apt in many situations. Another old saying is

"Locked doors only keep honest people out"

Until and unless you can get people to realize that passing a law does nothing but give legislators something to do, so it LOOKS like they are doing something real and effective, you are just being the pig's music instructor.

And its about the same with any subject there are laws about, all that seems to vary is a matter of degree, and how those laws affect our personal lives.

The non gun owner doesn't give a rip about gun control laws, generally, unless they are an anti-gun person, then they care and want more of them.

One wonders how they would feel if there was a waiting period, background check, extra fees and you could only sell your golf clubs through a licensed golf club dealer... or tennis raquet or what ever sporting equipment they used in their personal lives...

They put a "sin tax' on soda, beer, wine, etc, but not coffee....and the coffee drinkers are all fine with that...point here is, unless its your personal ox that is getting gored, most people don't care. And trying to explain to them why we don't need more laws for things that are already crimes is rarely successful.

Additionally, it seems that in the last few decades, many people immediately going to the extreme end of any issue has become the "new normal" and reasoned discussion of reality is rare, further complicating virtually everything. Calm, rational, voice of reason gets lost in the shouting rants of the extremists, and that only helps the extremists.

There was a reason the founding fathers did not create the US as a democracy, but you'll find very few people today who are even aware of that.
Let alone know what that reason was.

 

[seanc]

This was never meant to be a great philosophical debate

---> BAH! Famous last words!!

Explaining reality to people who don't want to listen (or worse, don't care) seldom works.

Additionally, it seems that in the last few decades, many people immediately going to the extreme end of any issue has become the "new normal" and reasoned discussion of reality is rare, further complicating virtually everything. Calm, rational, voice of reason gets lost...

Once someone has formed an opinion, they personalize it and it becomes a part of their ego. I'm on the right, so it appears to me that those on the left are ruled by their emotions, not logic (because they are). They think the same about me. It's been proven that those on the left are more ruled by emotional appeals than appeals to logic ("do it for the children!!!"). The left sees the right as ruled by the emotions of hate and bigotry, if the right is assigned any emotions at all. 2A advocates tend to be on the right (tribal thinking) so when we chose to engage in debate with anti-2A people, we can bring the logic, but we have to speak the language of the other side and speak in anecdotes and personal impact, otherwise, we'll never penetrate the out barrier of their egos to reach their logic.