"Had the federal government prohibited bookstores from selling books to out-of-state resi- dents, no court would hold that impacted readers lack standing to challenge such a law under the First Amendment. Barring access to the national market for books would directly inflict an injury-in-fact upon consumers. Federal courts are empowered to fully redress that injury. None of this is particularly difficult or controversial.
"But substituting “handguns” for “books,” and “Second” for “First” Amendment, sometimes yields different results. The lower court held that criminal prohibitions of retail handgun sales do not directly impact frustrated consumers where the prohibitions are directed at sellers. The sellers’ compliance with the law in refusing to complete a prohibited transation, and the prohibition’s impact on the market, are, as far as the lower court is concerned, merely the intervening voluntary decisions of third parties."
So starts the introduction of a petition for
certiorari to the Supreme Court in
Lane v. Holder, filed pn May 28th, 2013. SCOTUS Docket 12-1401, A response is due on July 1st.
The petition is asking to reverse the issue of standing, affirmed by the CA4, on purely consumer standing to challenge federal regulation. It is a good petition, and lays out why the district and the CA4 were wrong. But at this point, I won't hold my breath in wondering if the Court will grant cert.