With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is not enough to confer standing.” Id. Finally, the plaintiffs can meet their burden to show standing in a threat-of-prosecution situation by showing past prosecutions under the act in question. Id. at 1128. Because the gun rights plaintiffs could not establish the foregoing requirements, they did not meet their burden of showing they had Article III standing for their claim. Id. at 1129. With regard to ripeness, the court noted that the issue must be “fit for judicial decision” and that “the parties will suffer hardship if we decline to consider the issues.” Id. at 1132. Because the issues were not “purely legal” and because the plaintiffs had not been threatened with prosecution, the court found that the claims were not ripe for adjudication. Id.; see also Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1138-39 (<HOLDING>). In this case plaintiffs allege three

A: holding that landlords who vowed not to follow an antidiscrimination housing statute did not have a justiciable claim for injunctive relief when they had not yet violated the statute and had certainly not been prosecuted for any violation
B: holding that petitioners did not possess a private right of action for injunctive and declaratory relief sought because only the citys housing official could enforce the citys housing maintenance code
C: holding that college violated stay by not delivering transcript to chapter 7 debtor when debt had not yet been determined dischargeable
D: holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute
A.