The brace rule is on pause, but so far only for the plaintiffs in Mock vs Garland

It's about time, I have been expecting something along these lines for a while now. Hopefully the clarification covers everyone who would be in violation after the deadline and not just the specific plaintiffs, however, my advice would be to remain cautious and not be out flaunting your braces until this is put to bed in a very clear and decisive fashion.
 
 
beeenbag said:
It's about time, I have been expecting something along these lines for a while now. Hopefully the clarification covers everyone who would be in violation after the deadline and not just the specific plaintiffs, however, my advice would be to remain cautious and not be out flaunting your braces until this is put to bed in a very clear and decisive fashion.
Click to expand...
I believe the clarification will only possibly cover FPC members. The ruling was clear that it only covers the plaintiffs, the question is whether all FPC members can be considered part of the plaintiffs group.

IAC this is a Fifth Circuit case and would not cover people in the other circuits.
 
The court now clarified that FPC members and Maxim customers are included in the plaintiffs group. Read in full on G&G:
 
old lady new shooter said:
I believe the clarification will only possibly cover FPC members ... question is whether all FPC members can be considered part of the plaintiffs group.
Click to expand...
FPC members are covered but only members onboard at the time of filing of lawsuit and not new members - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...er_on_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf?1685129339

"... ‘Plaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation"​
 
Last edited:
The Last Outlaw said:
Right, but look what their signup page says…
https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw
Click to expand...
"It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS

All FPC Members are covered by this injunction."​

FPC FB page also says this - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1662605448833552385

"We wanted and asked for a nationwide injunction to cover everybody everywhere. That was denied. On appeal, the Court limited the relief to what was clarified in the Order"
​
And court's clarification said this - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12636679
  • IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ opposed motion for clarification of the motion panel’s May 23, 2023, order is GRANTED.
  • ... term ‘Plaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.
  • ... term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members.
  • Any relief beyond what is explicitly requested, which arguably would be tantamount to a nationwide injunction, is DENIED.
I am not a lawyer, just a layperson but "members ... since day one of this litigation" could mean members at the time of filing and new members.
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
FPC members are covered but only members onboard at the time of filing of lawsuit and not new members - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...er_on_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf?1685129339

"... ‘Plaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation"​
Click to expand...
I'm not clear that means only members onboard at the time of filing of the lawsuit. THE LANGUAGE IS FROM THE CLARIFICATION REQUEST BY FPC, and could be interpreted to mean that they when they filed the lawsuit they had in mind that they were representing their members. Poor choice of words on their part IMO because it could be interpreted either way.

If you read FPC's statement about the clarification (see post #7, https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...iffs-in-mock-vs-garland.919369/#post-12636637) they do not mention anything about the membership date.

IAC pauses have been requested in all the other lawsuits as well and one or more may result in a clear blanket nationwide pause, which would be great.
 
old lady new shooter said:
I'm not clear that means only members onboard at the time of filing of the lawsuit.

Poor choice of words on their part IMO because it could be interpreted either way.
Click to expand...
FPC claiming "All FPC Members are covered by this injunction" could express to mean "since day one of this litigation" of court's clarification as members onboard on the day of filing and new members since the day of filing.

Either way, good news for pistol brace owners and bad news for ATF.
 
LiveLife said:
FPC claiming "All FPC Members are covered by this injunction" could express to mean "since day one of this litigation" of court's clarification as members onboard on the day of filing and new members since the day of filing.

Either way, good news for pistol brace owners and bad news for ATF.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
I bet FPC is getting a good blessing of new membership regardless, some people just jump without thinking. I say good for them. I hope they get all kinds of money and I'll probably sign up today and hope for some clarification in the not so distant future... I hate the vagueness of the "clarification".
 
The Last Outlaw said:
Click to expand...

A constitutional attorney refutes that opinion in support of new FPC members being covered by the court clarification of the original preliminary injunction - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12637757
  • Firearms Policy Coalition members who are residents of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana are covered
  • FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are covered
  • New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership (Similar motion was raised for the bump stock case in 2019 but the anti 2A judge specified in the injunction the words "bonified members" to limit the scope of PI but in Mock v Garland case, such limitation was not placed and simply the word "members" was used)
Attorney discuss that future/potential customers of Maxim Defense Industries could be covered as well who purchase not just pistol braces but any other product sold by Maxim Defense Industries, which could be the entire country, could be covered as the footnote of the court clarification of one member of three judge "merits" panel objecting to expand to "customers" from "motion" panel's order that limited to "plaintiffs" points out that Maxim Defense Industries must keep selling products under the PI or they will lose money/go bankrupt which means all future/potential customers must be protected to purchase from Maxim Defense Industries, that is the entire country:

*One member of the merits panel would not clarify the motion panel’s order to extend the injunction to “customers.” [2 other judges overruled one objecting judge as majority] The motion panel’s injunction was limited “to the Plaintiffs in this case.” There is no authority in the motion panel’s order to extend the injunction to an infinite number of non-parties to this case on the theory that, for full relief to be afforded to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs must be permitted to sell products to an undefined set of downstream purchasers. Full adversary briefing will assist us to confirm our court’s equitable powers under the Constitution.​
 
LiveLife said:
"It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS

All FPC Members are covered by this injunction."​

FPC FB page also says this - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1662605448833552385

"We wanted and asked for a nationwide injunction to cover everybody everywhere. That was denied. On appeal, the Court limited the relief to what was clarified in the Order"
​
And court's clarification said this - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12636679
  • IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ opposed motion for clarification of the motion panel’s May 23, 2023, order is GRANTED.
  • ... term ‘Plaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.
  • ... term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members.
  • Any relief beyond what is explicitly requested, which arguably would be tantamount to a nationwide injunction, is DENIED.
I am not a lawyer, just a layperson but "members ... since day one of this litigation" could mean members at the time of filing and new members.
Click to expand...

Is FPC the same as FRAC??

https://www.fracaction.org/challenging-atf-brace-rule
 
Rule3 said:
Is FPC the same as FRAC??

https://www.fracaction.org/challenging-atf-brace-rule
Click to expand...
No.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is different from Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) where FPC is representing members/people and FRAC is representing the manufacturers/customers.

FPC mission - Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization founded on a philosophy of natural rights with an unambiguous Purpose, consistent Values, and clear Mission to fight for the People, liberty, and freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the right to keep and bear arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC typically has members and supporters in all 50 U.S. States and the District of Columbia ... [Purpose] Create a world of maximal human liberty and freedom - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/about

FRAC mission - FRAC’s sole mission is to aggressively advocate for and defend firearms, ammunition, and accessories manufacturers and importers from government overreach. This includes holding the government accountable for arbitrary and capricious policies and rulings and ensuring that the government’s regulation of the industry is conducted in an open and transparent manner. FRAC will be the leading advocate of firearms manufacturers, importers, and their customers before federal regulatory agencies - https://www.fracaction.org/mission
 
So if someone was to join the FPC today, are they then included in the injunction? Does membership have to predate the lawsuit?
 
Balrog said:
So if someone was to join the FPC today, are they then included in the injunction?
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR.

FPC clarified on their FB page that motion panel's Preliminary Injunction and merits panel's clarification reflects original brief's meaning of representing all members (members who donate monthly, one time, occasionally to include lifetime members when offered) - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1663304124740546560

The “since day one” was directly quoting from our brief, where we said that we have been representing all of our members from the very beginning of the case. It’s being misinterpreted because it lacks the context of the rest of our brief. See: http://firearmspolicy.org/mock

We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members.
​
FPC's take on the court's clarification is supported by a constitutional attorney - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12637757

Our friend and 2A scholar, @fourboxesdiner, made an excellent video about our Mock v. Garland pistol brace case and injunction. Check it out at https://youtu.be/XrllNyNa8lU​
  • Firearms Policy Coalition members who are residents of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana are covered
  • FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are covered
  • New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership (Similar motion was raised for the bump stock case in 2019 but the anti 2A judge specified in the injunction the words "bonified members" to limit the scope of PI but in Mock v Garland case, such limitation was not placed and simply the word "members" was used - 11:50 minute of video)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
fantastic ruling in the pistol brace case (Mock v Garland)
Replies
2
Views
577
rust collector
R
LiveLife
$20+ FPC membership by 5/31/23 may "likely covered" under Mock v Garland preliminary injunction
Replies
15
Views
1K
LiveLife
LiveLife
O
FPC has filed a supplemental brief in Mock v Garland (pistol brace rule case)
Replies
0
Views
387
old lady new shooter
O
A
5th Crt Ruling In Favor of Plaintiff in Cargill v. Garland, Legalizes Bump Stocks in 3 states
Replies
3
Views
477
12Bravo20
12Bravo20
LiveLife
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
8K
LiveLife
LiveLife
Back
Top