Earlier this week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the ATF’s pistol brace ban until the case can be decided. But as Jeremy pointed out in our earlier post, the order only applied to the named plaintiffs in the suit.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of those named plaintiffs, petitioned the court for clarification and yesterday, they got it. The injunction does, in fact, only cover the plaintiffs in the suit. However, one of those named plaintiffs is the Firearms Policy Coalition…and all of its members.
That effectively extends the injunction nationwide. Anyone who joins FPC will therefore be covered by the Fifth Circuit’s injunction. As TTAG contributor LKB told us this morning . . .
If I had a braced pistol, I’d be quietly signing up as an FPC member pronto. This wrinkle in the case has the potential to make any injunction effectively nationwide.
For instance, if you’re in Idaho, any test case would have to go thru the Ninth Circuit. Let’s assume the Ninth Circuit disagrees with what we expect Fifth Circuit to do, and upholds the ATF rule. But if you’re an FPC member, and the Fifth Circuit ultimately rules that an injunction issued covers FPC members, no problem: because the Fifth Circuit injunction covers you. The feds are enjoined from prosecuting you.
(Obviously, you’d want to get a clarifying order from the court in the Texas case that establishes that you are an FPC member, and that as such the feds are indeed enjoined from prosecuting you.)
Point taken. Few people want to become a test case. That said, if I owned a braced gun with a barrel under 16 inches, I’d be signing up for FPC membership.
Here’s the FPC’s press release announcing the court’s clarification . . .
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC’s members, Maxim Defense’s customers, and the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.
FPC challenged ATF’s administrative rule that seeks to reclassify “braced pistols” as “short-barreled rifles.” In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements.
FPC has argued that the rule is a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes upon the fundamental and natural rights of the People. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
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.”
“We’re incredibly excited to report that the Fifth Circuit has clarified that our injunction covers FPC‘s members and Maxim Defense’s customers, as we have always argued for,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “This relief will offer protection while we continue to fight against ATF’s overreach.”
Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
uh Armed Scholar even said the clarification needs more clarification and FPC membership doesn’t guarantee being covered under the injunction. Plus the caveat of
“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.’
Since day one of the litigation how does that cover new members?
The end game will be when a *permanent* injunction is entered. If you’re a member at the time the permanent injunction drops, I suspect you’d be covered if the court sticks with the institutional standing finding.
And credit where due: FPC has achieved what I thought was exceedingly unlikely (due to the procedural posture of the case). Good job Cody!
thats not even an answer but thanks for nothing
In all fairness, that’s probably all the information LKB has currently.
Anyways, thanks to Cody for the FPC’s work, and LKB for the heads-up, I have already divorced my braces from the pistols they were attached to, and joined the FPC.
I also kicked them 50 bucks as a one time donation out of gratitude.
Here’s to crossed fingers and gonads this becomes permanent nationwide… 🙂
Does this not run afoul of equal treatment under the law?
See my comment below. It does not.
You sure get a lot of crap for trying to help people out LKB. I appreciate your knowledge of the law. Thank You!
I watched some gun law commentators on YouTube yesterday explain their interpretation of the court’s clarification was the Injunction covers Plaintiffs Maxim Defense customers and Firearms Policy Coalition members within the three states comprising the 5th Circuit, that is, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, not all those customers and members nationwide.
I’d like some knowledgeable person to explain whether this injection protects those nationwide or only in those 3 states.
I checked PACER, and in First Amended Complaint FPC asserts that it has members across the country that are impacted by the reg. Nor is there anything in the motion for preliminary injunctive relief that limits the scope of relief requested to FPC members who reside in the Fifth Circuit.
So I’m not seeing a basis to claim that a Fifth Circuit injunction (or a final permanent injunction) would somehow be limited to FPC members in the Fifth Circuit only.
Nice! Thanks for the info.
@LKB
“So I’m not seeing a basis to claim that a Fifth Circuit injunction (or a final permanent injunction) would somehow be limited to FPC members in the Fifth Circuit only.”
But, by default, isn’t a federal circuit court decision limited to the courts jurisdiction of the ‘area’ covered by that circuit court?
.40 Cal:
Legal *precedent* of one circuit (i.e., what the circuit court says the law is) is binding on the district courts in that circuit, but not in other district courts. E.g., if the Fifth Circuit interprets a statute of limitations one way, all the district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have to follow that interpretation, but a federal court in, say, Arkansas is not required to.
But a court order or judgment granting relief *as to the parties in the case* binds those parties everywhere. E.g., if you are in Arkansas, and I take a judgment against you in Texas federal district court that is affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, I can enforce it against you in Arkansas. You can’t argue in an Arkansas federal district court that contrary Circuit law excuses you from complying with a final judgment.
Thus, if the end result of this case is that there is an order enjoining Uncle Sam from enforcing the regs against the Plaintiffs (which under associational standing rules could include all FPC members), that’ll be binding on Uncle Sam regardless of where the Plaintiffs reside.
Six months prior I misplaced my work and after that I was blessed sufficient to falter upon a extraordinary site which truly spared me. I begun working for them online and in a brief time after I’ve begun averaging 15k a month… The finest thing was that cause I am not that computer smart all I required was a few essential writing aptitudes and web get to to begin.
:
) AND Great Luckiness.:
)
HERE====)>>> https://jobhiring3.blogspot.com/
“…the order only applied to the named plaintiffs in the suit.”
If I sign up with FPC today, would I be covered? I wasn’t a member when the suit was filed, so how can I be a “named plaintiff?”
“If I sign up with FPC today, would I be covered? I wasn’t a member when the suit was filed, so how can I be a “named plaintiff?”
My understanding from communications with FPC is basically this: Yes, you will be covered. You didn’t need to be a named plaintiff. The members of FPC were automatically included and there isn’t any requirement designated in the order that sets a limit that you had to be a member when it was filed.
But you could contact them and ask and see what they tell you.
As I tried to explain above, I think the key would be whether or not you are a FPC member at the time a PERMANENT injunction is entered (which assumes FPC wins the case).
In other words, even if you signed up after the injunction pending appeal came out (in which case, that narrow injunction may or may not cover you), being a member at the time *permanent* relief is granted is a different kettle of fish.
@LKB
I agree with you if this were a PERMANENT injunction. But the question before us now I think people are interested in, concerns this, two questions, with the conditions of this is a TEMPORARY injunction, and this TEMPORARY injunction applies for members of FPC:
1. If one signs up with FPC now, before the grace period ends, would a person be covered under this TEMPORARY injunction when the grace period ends?
2. Under the same conditions, after the grace period ends, would a person be covered if they were to sign up with FPC after the grace period ends at the end of May 2023 ?
I’m focusing on permanent relief, as ultimately that’s all that matters. If FPC prevails in the case, the feds are precluded from enforcing it against those covered by the injunction, regardless of where they reside. That’s potentially very advantageous to those living “behind enemy lines,” where their local circuit might reach a different conclusion. (If FPC doesn’t ultimately prevail, it’s all moot anyway.)
If you are asking about whether the narrow, temporary, injunction pending appeal just entered applies to new FPC members, that’s a harder question, and like anything you should consult your own legal counsel (or the FPC). As my quoted comment makes clear, given the potential severe penalties I personally would not act without a explicit court order confirming that I, personally, was indeed protected by the injunction.
I checked to be sure that I was already a member. I am. I don’t have a brace on my AR15 pistol and never saw the need for one but I might someday.
The atf ruling is already pathetic and to add insult to injury now you need to run join a group to be “assumed protected.” Thus far the clown show does not encompass The Right of The People…That said, enjoy the discrimination inherent with Gun Control.
assuming your protected theres nothing in that clarification that indicates new FPC members are covered under this injunction I get FPC needs more members but not answering actual questions and telling people if you join you’re covered when they may not be is reckless as hell.
Connecticut is doing almost the same thing. How is this even legal ?
Grandfathered ” assault weapons ” now may be banned.
Connecticut: Democrat-Controlled House Votes to Add Grandfathered Guns to ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/05/26/connecticut-democrat-controlled-house-votes-to-add-grandfathered-guns-to-assault-weapons-ban/
ATF has just lined FPC’s pockets. Which FPC will use to sue ATF.
“ATF has just lined FPC’s pockets.”
And Gottlieb’s SAF, and, and…
Yeah, one of the YouTube Gun Folk made the comment all the rights organizations will benifit with this one.
Any, yes, join the stampede of suing the BATF into submission.
God bless Donald J. Trump and his *3* Supreme Court picks that made all this possible… 🙂
I’m not complying regardless… so there..
I’ve always donated to FPC but seem to be unable to get some ” proof of membership “…would donations (banking application entries of payments)be acknowledged as ” de facto membership “?
Only asking because the notion that ” only protected if a member” flies in the face of ” equal protection “
As far as your FPC membership, you’ll need to check with FPC.
WRT “equal protection,” it’s not implicated. Remember, this is a suit brought by specific persons (and by the FPC, on behalf of its members) for specific legal relief — to declare that the reg is illegal and can’t be enforced against THEM. Except for things like associational standing (e.g., FPC is allowed to sue on behalf of its members in cases like this), you generally can’t sue to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief for others. This is the fundamental concept of standing: that a plaintiff can sue sue to enforce the plaintiff’s legal rights and redress its own injury, but can’t sue to enforce *other* people’s legal rights.
If the plaintiffs in this case obtain relief, the judgment will state, inter alia, “defendants are enjoined from enforcing the reg against Plaintiffs.” While the holding of the case may be precedent that effectively ties ATF’s hands (or may even include an order voiding the reg entirely), the actual injunctive relief courts grant is typically limited to the parties before the court.
That doesn’t violate or even implicate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment — that just how civil lawsuits work.
“…would donations (banking application entries of payments)be acknowledged as ” de facto membership “?”
I wondered the exact same thing, so I kicked the FPC fifty bucks as a one-time donation when I joined, and used my bank card to do so, just for the bank digital transfer proof…
Just wanted to say I bought an upper like that in the main photo, it was pretty well identical. If it’s the same hand guard it’s actually a take down style setup.
I sent FPC a donation anyway. I may be a member already, IDK. But more power to them.
“I sent FPC a donation anyway.”
If you did electronically, you have the proof when transfer happened on your bank account records.
It cost nothing to join, so why not?
I’m with Menard. I’m joining anyway, run it all the way FPC!
Join and not be criminal.
All the constitutional issues aside; except as a novelty, why would anyone want the weapon featured in the lead? Never saw anyone not put it to his shoulder. Turn that coin over. Never saw anyone use one as described for its intended use.
“why would anyone want the weapon featured in the lead?”
It has a place for inside the home, compact like that is less of a chance you whack a doorway with the barrel when sweeping back and forth.
That’s kinda irrelevant and not the point, it’s your civil right to set up a gun the way you want…
I don’t own a short/braced AR or PCC. Don’t feel the need for such. Not like some old fart like me is going to be crawling in and out of armored vehicles or CQB house clearing anytime soon.
That said, if someone wants a braced pistol AR or needs a brace to steady their hand, etc. there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to legally, and without government interference, be able to get and keep such items.
A brace does not make the pistol work any better, shoot faster, hit harder, or suddenly become more accurate. It merely makes it easier for someone with a disability, or just wants a short weapon to safely use such a pistol.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals entered injunction pending appeal in Biden Pistol Brace Regulation fight. Mark Smith breaks it down the specifics of the order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1EIjrqvjCo
How There Will Be NO Nationwide Injunction on ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1563ZTnTqE
I don’t know who that guy is, but he apparently didn’t read the order very carefully. It
specifically stated that the injunction pending appeal applied to Maxim Defense’s customers and FPC members.
As far as his complaints about no nationwide injunction, NOBODY expected the Fifth Circuit to enter a nationwide injunction pending the appeal of a DENIAL of a preliminary injunction motion. That FPC was able to get the relief that they did was a pleasant surprise.
What Does Mass Non-Compliance with ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule Really Look Like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDWp90nQ1Es
About joining FPC:
It is not clear from the FPC web site that you are actually ‘joining’ anything in a ‘membership sense’. But rather, from the FPC web site at their ‘join’ link you are only actually given the option to ‘donate’ even though they keep throwing the word ‘join’ around and imply ‘membership’ in some context (e.g. maybe in the sense of being a member of a group of people would would donate, or in other words you ‘joined’ that sector in a donation sense). In other words, by the wording used, you are not ‘purchasing’ a ‘membership’ but rather ‘donating’ to the FPC and seemingly ‘joining’ only in a sense of being part of a sector of society that chose to donate as in, for example, “I joined in the cause by donating.” as there is no ‘positive’ feed back in visible verifiable ‘membership’ as in, for example, a membership card.
So does this ‘donation’, rather than a specific ‘purchase of membership’ type of thing, mean being a ‘member’ of FPC for purposes of this temporary injunction is actually a member by the donation?
And also, donations are ‘optional’ for people, no one twists your arm to donate to FPC and its your choice so if you choose not to donate then don’t complain about it.
But if you don’t donate you can’t ‘join’ apparently judging from the FPC ‘join’ site – sigh, I wish they were more clear on ‘join’ and ‘membership’ as the way the words are thrown around by FPC with ‘join’ and ‘donation’ vs ‘members’ as in covered by the temp injunction does not define when a person is a ‘member’.
But!!! If you look closely at the FPC join site you will notice a link entitled “Use Your DonorID (optional)” and if you click on that a pop-up comes up and at the bottom of that it says ‘Donate to create your DonorID” Ahhhh ha! A clue for ‘something’ maybe!
Apparently, your membership in a ‘donor sector of people’ is ‘membership’ for which you receive a ‘Donor ID’ of some sort when you donate. So is this verification of membership and are you actually a ‘member’ if you donate and not just part of a sector of people that chose to donate?
and in addition… at the ‘Contact Us’ link on the FPC web site > https://www.firearmspolicy.org/contact
It has two different classes – PUBLIC & MEMBER SUPPORT – and states “f you have a question about your membership or a donation, or if you would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army please call us at (916) 378-5785 or email us at support[at]firearmspolicy.org.” ([email protected])
Ah Ha! So ‘donating’ (simply being a donor) is different from ‘membership’ and ‘joining’ it seems. It seems that to join to become a member that you do not donate at their ‘join’ site but rather either call them or email them.
So if you want to become an FPC member (not being one already), do not donate at their ‘join’ site thinking you become a member that way. Instead, call them or email and get the specifics on how to become an actual member instead of ‘a donor’ through their ‘join’ site
Great info .40 cal. Thank you. It sounds to me like membership isn’t as important to them as your donations are so that they can keep fighting in the courts. And your donations make you a part of the coalition. I am going to email them out of interest in joining anyway.
That is correct. I “joined” several years ago. When I checked yesterday I was able to sign in with my donor ID.
I consider all humans donors.
I guess you get the last laugh possum.
Once they start making electric F150’s you don’t stand a chance!
I’m sorry, I do not understand your reply. would you kindly explain your meaning please?
If you have been reading the Possum’s comments on TTAG, you will notice a running theme he has.
And that is, snacking on expired humans he comes across as he scurries about out his day.
To understand the Possum, treat him as if he really was a marsupial that learned to use a computer… 🙂
Well, I threw them a one-time $30 donation, and the email confirmation I got from them contains the following as the third sentence: You are now a member of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). Welcome aboard!
Seems pretty unambiguous. If proving my membership becomes legally necessary, I’ll be printing that out, highlighting that line, and entering it as ‘Exhibit A’.
I got one of those too a few months ago when I did my annual donations cycle to the various gun rights orgs, one of which is FPC. But the year before that the email didn’t contain that. But when I called them asking about this temp-injunction-member thing they had no record of me being a (donating) ‘member’ and asked me if I wanted to be a member. Its almost like its two different things, donating and actually being a member.
The email from donation is an auto-thing, its handled by a third party ‘entity’ system (Anedot) that handles their donation management. It could be there is some sort of disconnect and the (or some or maybe all, not sure) donors are not actually making it into the ‘membership list’ even though they get an email with that line in it.
So it seems like you need to actually call them or email, which is what they say in their link at > https://www.firearmspolicy.org/contact > with … “PUBLIC & MEMBER SUPPORT – and states “If you have a question about your membership or a donation, or if you would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army please call us at (916) 378-5785 or email us at support[at]firearmspolicy.org.” ([email protected]).
I’d still call/email to verify if I were you and get something concrete from them if you plan to use this in relation to the temp-injunction-membership thing.
My understanding from communications with FPC is basically this, short version: Yes you will be covered if you are a member, either joining now or already having been a member. You didn’t need to be a member when the case started or when temp injunction order was issued to be covered.
So I’m not sure really how all this works. There seems to be differing opinions. And there is a low key ‘lawyer vs lawyer’ opinion thing going on with some saying ‘yes, you are covered if you become a member now’ and others saying ‘no, you will not be covered if you became a member after the temp injunction order was issued’ and yet a third opinion saying ‘maybe and maybe not’ and then another saying ‘you would not be covered unless you were a member when the case started’
I don’t see any long term outcome in which the rule is determined to only apply to people who are members of some organization. It’ll either be upheld or struck down in full, eventually. FPC is getting grifty on this “pay us money to be safe from the ATF” angle.
OK, how about this:
Fifth Circuit holds the reg is unconstitutional; remands the case. On remand, district court enters a permanent injunction against federal enforcement against the plaintiffs (including FPC members and Maxim Defense customers).
In a separate test case, Ninth Circuit holds the reg *is* constitutional, creating a circuit split.
While we would hope that SCOTUS would then take a case to resolve the circuit split, it doesn’t always do so: there are stark circuit splits 180 degrees apart that have been in place for decades. Similarly, while I would hope the the relief on remand from the Fifth Circuit order would include an order invalidating the reg (which would be tantamount to a national injunction), as we saw in the bump stock case (Cargill) some judges are reluctant to do that.
In such a situation, if you’re not an FPC member and live / have your gat in the Ninth Circuit, game over.
If you live in the Fifth Circuit (and don’t take your gat elsewhere), you’re cool because Fifth Circuit precedent says the reg is unconstitutional. If you’re an FPC member, feds are enjoined from prosecuting you; if not, motion to dismiss any indictment will have to be granted because of binding circuit precedent (and the prosecutors would be subject to a malicious prosecution lawsuit).
But if you are an FPC member at the time the permanent injunction comes down and live / have your gat in the Ninth Circuit, what then? There is an injunction in place that prohibits federal enforcement of the reg against you. (As noted above, I’d want a clarifying order making it 100% clear I was recognized as an FPC member who was covered by the injunction.) If you had that and the DOJ then tried to enforce the reg against you, you should have an easy motion to dismiss the indictment and to hold the DOJ officials involved in contempt of court (and federal district judges do not take kindly to anyone — including feds — disobeying their orders).
That’s the scenario my quoted statement envisioned.
And that was not done at the request of the FPC — it’s just a wrinkle I noticed the Fifth Circuit’s order created.
“I’d be quietly signing up as an FPC member pronto”
That begs the question, how does one going about signing up noisily?
I suppose saying in a website like TTAG that you joined would be noise… ?
I consider using your credit card to be noisy unless you consider your credit card history to be private (LOL)
PISTOL BRACE UPDATE: Federal Appeals Court Injunction in favor of 2A Analyzed in Detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrllNyNa8lU
This just in
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Defending Your Right to Defend Yourself
** NOTE: If you forward this email, be sure to delete the “unsubscribe” information at the very bottom so someone else can’t unsubscribe you by accident **
Important update on pistol braces
A Texas federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction to keep the federal government from enforcing the new pistol brace rule on members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) starting on June 1.
FPC is saying that gun owners are covered by the injunction if they join FPC before the end of May.
HOWEVER, VCDL attorney John Pierce believes that is NOT correct. He believes the injunction only applies to members of FPC at the time the lawsuit was filed and does not cover new members since that date.
Here is John’s analysis:
https://johnpierceesq.com/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-clarifies-scope-of-preliminary-injunction-against-arm-brace-rule/
And John is not alone in believing FPC is incorrect. Video from William Kirk, a firearms attorney in Washington State:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=_a9ijjMLCMw
(Interesting side note: believe it or not, the BATFE objected when FPC merely asked the judge for a clarification on who is covered by the injunction! Odd that the BATFE doesn’t want gun owners to know if they are protected by the injunction or not. Fortunately, the judge ignored BATFE’s objections and issued the clarification. John’s and William’s analyses, above, took that clarification into account.)
–
There is now a second injunction, also from Texas and similar to the above, for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). That one, too, applies to SAF members when the lawsuit was filed.
–
The above said, FPC is doing a lot to fight gun control through the courts, as is GOA, SAF, and others. All of those groups are worthy of your support. Hats off to FPC and SAF for getting those injunctions.
And there are more injunction rulings that could well come down before Thursday, so stay tuned for more breaking news on this!
This is all very confusing. As I noted further up in the comments there seems to be a ‘lawyer vs lawyer’ opinion thing going on with some saying ‘yes, you are covered if you become a member now’ and others saying ‘no, you will not be covered if you became a member after the temp injunction order was issued’ and yet a third opinion saying ‘maybe and maybe not’ and then another saying ‘you would not be covered unless you were a member when the case started’.
Now there is yet another lawyer opinion saying that if you are an FPC member you are only covered if you are in the 5th circuit jurisdiction (Texas, Mississippi & Louisiana) and not ‘nationwide’ as some have put forth.
Personally, I did not think it applied nationwide because of the language in the courts clarification about ‘tantamount’ to nationwide being denied as to the application of the term ‘members’ – and also the confusion created by specifically what ‘members’ means in the order and the terminology of a ‘since day one of the case’ type of language in the clarification. So personally, I tend to think about this along the lines of William Kirk.
I had previously contacted FPC about this. My understanding from communications with FPC is basically this, short version: Yes you will be covered if you are a member, either joining now or already having been a member. You didn’t need to be a member when the case started or when temp injunction order was issued to be covered.
But now FPC is saying people are covered by the injunction if they join FPC before the end of May (which is when the brace rule grace period ends). (BTW, the rule is already in effect, its just that there was a grace period given to ‘comply’ with this unconstitutional attempt at law making by rule).
In the clarification it says “customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation”
And John Pierce says its regardless of where they are located (which indicates a nationwide thing), but that’s contradictory because the clarification specifically says ‘tantamount’ to nationwide is denied.
Anyway, after further research the way I personally am thinking about it is this: This would mean anyone who can show they were a member of FPC at the time the case started are covered if they are in the 5th circuit jurisdiction (Texas, Mississippi & Louisiana) and those who became members of FPC after that case start are not covered (even if in the 5th circuit jurisdiction) and those who are FPC members from case start (or now) who are not in the 5th circuit jurisdiction are not covered. And additionally, this decision is not applicable nationwide. Does this sort of make sense?
In addition, the term ‘nationwide’ in relation to this is used in the legal sense and not the geographic sense. Its confusing. In a legal sense the term ‘nationwide’ only means the decision does not bind the federal government in its relations with nonparties (e.g. those not members of FPC or customers of Maxim Defense).
So once again, because of the way ‘nationwide’ is used I have to sort of tend somewhat back towards the John Pierce explanation and that is those who were customers of Maxim Defense and members of FPC since day one of this litigation regardless of where they are located (in the 5th circuit jurisdiction or not, in other words geographically nationwide) are covered.
As John Pierce puts it ; “This means that, anyone who can document the fact that they were a member of FPC at the time to the commencement of the suit are protected. Those who joined afterwards are not.”
Reasonable minds can differ as to the interpretation of the narrow injunction pending appeal, and whether it applies to new FPC members. Again, I personally would not rely on anything short of a court order that unambiguously says I’m covered (if I owned a braced pistol, which I do not), simply given the life-altering penalties involved.
But as to what happens if CTA5 reverses and remands the case for entry of a permanent injunction? I still think that if you are an FPC member at the time that final order is entered, you would be covered (and I suspect FPC will try and get that specific language included in the order).
The two to watch are the GoA case before Judge Tipton in Houston, and the multistate case in North Dakota.
I looked on PACER for the stuff in the GoA case, and it appears Judge Tipton plans on ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction tomorrow. Of interest, GoA has pointed out that in his recent Congressional testimony, the ATF honcho testified that all a braced pistol owner has to do to comply is remove the brace; that he can keep the brace as long as he doesn’t reattach it. That’s of course contrary to what the reg actually says (remove AND destroy), but it provides an excellent argument: if even the head of ATF doesn’t know how the reg works, how can the typical citizen be expected to know what this criminal law is? (That augers in favor of the Rule of Leniency, especially given the severe criminal penalties involved.)
Buckle up folks; the next month is going to get interesting.
Comments are closed.