I believe there was already a S.C. ruling stating that you do not have to have suffered arrest to have standing when Rights are involved.but if no one has actually been arrested yet couldn't that result in a lack of standing ruling?
one of the things that pisses me off when local judges throw out opposition to NY's egregious and unconstitutional "laws" against gun ownership.
As long as the "law" is on the books and targets a constitutionally protected Right, you have standing to sue.