&gt; Because of the rigid insistence on legal standing, the only way to curtail the FAA on this issue is to release a person who has displayed a tendency for mass violence.<p>You&#x27;re seeing an interaction between two rather unintuitive rules.<p>Standing is required because legislature is supposed to make the law, not the courts. The courts only &quot;make law&quot; when they&#x27;re forced to because there is already a &quot;case or controversy&quot; and it has to be decided under the law in effect when the events occurred, not whatever Congress might decide to pass tomorrow. Only then do the courts decide what the ambiguous, vague, contradictory text Congress passed actually means. Then that decision stands as precedent and effectively becomes the law until the legislature disagrees in the form of passing contrary legislation (or a constitutional amendment).<p>But the thing you&#x27;re really objecting to is the exclusionary rule. Letting bad people go free is the mechanism by which the exclusionary rule operates, because it&#x27;s something the police don&#x27;t want, which means it can be used as punishment for the police when they break the rules.<p>The exclusionary rule is weird. When you see it in operation your instinct is to think that something is malfunctioning, but that&#x27;s how it&#x27;s supposed to work. You think it isn&#x27;t working because you want the same thing as the police and its method of operation is to do something the police don&#x27;t want.<p>The problem is the exclusionary rule does what it&#x27;s designed to do surprisingly well in practice, and the alternatives don&#x27;t.