Breaking: ATF Changes Their Mind On Pistol Braces AGAIN

[Big50]

Where can a person sign up?

 

[El Pablo]

You had to be a member of the fpc or customer of maxim when the lawsuit was filed. Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members

 

[jakeman]

You had to be a member of the fpc or customer of maxim when the lawsuit was filed. Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members

Can you post the part that says the injunctive relief only applies to previous and not new members?

 

[Chief Sapulpa]

Have you seen the "objective criteria" worksheet? It's a nightmare. And it still doesn't exempt anyone specifically. If your brace is "objectively" determined to turn your pistol into an SBR, you're affected whether you're disabled or not. There's also other criteria they factor in like the overall length and weight of the firearm.

No one is exempt from the stupidity of the bureaucrats at the ATF.

They should hand it over to ChatGPT to make the final determination.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

You had to be a member of the fpc or customer of maxim when the lawsuit was filed. Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members

The FPC is saying they believe it doesn't matter when you join...you're covered by the injunction.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion though I've yet to see a definitive legal response.

 

[jakeman]

You had to be a member of the fpc or customer of maxim when the lawsuit was filed. Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members

I don't think that's right.

The FPC is saying they believe it doesn't matter when you join...you're covered by the injunction.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion though I've yet to see a definitive legal response.

I concur.

See below tweet:

 

[El Pablo]

The FPC is saying they believe it doesn't matter when you join...you're covered by the injunction.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion though I've yet to see a definitive legal response.

I hope I’m wrong. It is how I interpreted day one of this litigation. We should be able to find the fifth circuit courts ruling somewhere.

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order: "This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ʻPlaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."

 

[Perplexed]

to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."

“since” not “prior” indicates to me there’s no cut-off date.

 

[jakeman]

I hope I’m wrong. It is how I interpreted day one of this litigation. We should be able to find the fifth circuit courts ruling somewhere.

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order: "This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ʻPlaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."

I believe you are misinterpreting that, and so does FPC as they are using the ruling to support a recruitment drive.

From the link below:

It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS. LET'S ****ING GO!!

https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

I've seen arguments by lawyers going both ways so I don't know.