Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Firearms Chat
Breaking: ATF Changes Their Mind On Pistol Braces AGAIN
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="El Pablo" data-source="post: 4044643" data-attributes="member: 1563"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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’ <strong>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.</strong>' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Pablo, post: 4044643, member: 1563"] 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’ [B]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.[/B]' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Firearms Chat
Breaking: ATF Changes Their Mind On Pistol Braces AGAIN
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom