It says there's no standing, not be because the law is _unenforced_, but because plaintiff hasn't suffered any perjury _from enforcement_ (which is ofc bc the law isn't enforced, but that's besides the point).
...As a result, Plaintiffs contend they reasonably fear that Defendants will continue to enforce the Federal Knife Ban against them.”10 The evidence presented by Defendants show there are only records of four enforcement actions in the county under the Act since 2004 and it has not been enforced since Plaintiffs do not counter this factual assertion. Accordingly, the threat of prosecution under Section 1242 “is therefore a mere hypothetical dispute lacking the concreteness and imminence required by Article III.
...it has not been enforced since at least 2004—the farthest back that systematic data is available.26 As a result, Plaintiffs plainly lack standing when they fail to provide evidence that the statutory provision has ever been enforced against them or regularly enforced against others.
This is my last transmission -- both of you are in a loop denying the documents say the very things I've quoted ( other commenter just keeps sea lioning the 10th amendment in a loop then doesnt understand the word 'power' or why POTUS is part of the 'United States' because it doesnt explicitly say that in that sentence lmao). Good luck, you now have the facts, our nation will need it.
It says there's no standing, not be because the law is _unenforced_, but because plaintiff hasn't suffered any perjury _from enforcement_ (which is ofc bc the law isn't enforced, but that's besides the point).