"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:07:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

In sum, we conclude that Heller has standing to raise his § 1983
challenge to specific provisions of the District's gun control laws.

Here's another one to add to your homework. What does "standing" mean?
Check
that out after you figure out what hearsay is. Oh, and while you're at
it,
what's Section 1983?

Too easy. I remember a case in California where some wacko sued to have
"under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. He used his young
daughter as the offended party who was an atheist and felt uncomfortable
saying "under God." The Supreme Court dismissed because they found the
Dad did not have standing to bring such a suit because he did not have
custody of the daughter. So, to have standing one must be directly
affected or aggrieved.

Wilbur Hubbard