-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today
- Thread starter Mr. Blenderson
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
@Aszerigan Does joining FPC after this decision shield one from ATF enforcement action?
Either way, it only matters until the final decision is reached.
No.
That post is a thinly veiled attempt to get donations using scare tactics and false promises. Wonder why half of the article is “How to donate to the FPC?”
Joining an organization does not give you any authority to skirt an ATF ruling, no matter how unconstitutional you think it is. If it’s overturned, great. But while it’s being challenged, there will be a lot of newly-minted felons on Thursday.
I’ve done what I can to help those I could stay within the law as it stands. Anyone looking for a quick fix or work around right now should consider what being charged with a crime is going to do to their family.
On the other side, I’m respectfully backing out of this discussion. I’ve spent hours and hours with people talking in circles about how to not be in compliance. That’s their choice, and it will be their punishment if they choose to not follow the law.
I don’t agree with the ruling, I think it’s ********. But being a person that doesn’t want to be subject to the political winds of the laws, I don’t keep those types of firearms around anyway. Best of luck to all those that choose to fight the system, I’ll be pulling for the filing to be overturned too.
Last edited:
Want to know how to avoid filing? Start a religion. The Church of the Brace. Religious exemption might be the most effective defense in court at this point.
Much better than the "I don't agree with it so I'm not gunna" response.
I respectfully submit Aszerigan did not read the filings and court orders issued in Mock v. Garland, only the FPC web page. I have been reading them on FPC plus Court Listener as events unfolded, including the Preliminary Injunction and the subsequent Injunction Clarification issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals over the past couple days. The ATF has been temporarily enjoined from enforcing the Pistol Brace Rule, effective immediately as of the Court Order, on the named Plaintiffs ONLY, which includes the Firearms Policy Coalition. Clarification specifically states that injunction applies and covers all members of the FPC and their family members (to prevent ATF from charging "constructive possession" on family residing with an FPC member).
I've been an FPC member since the middle of last year. Received this email from them late yesterday (Thursday, 26 May). There are no dues although they strongly encourage donations as that's their only source of revenue and aren't shy about it. I don't remember paying any last yea), and received an email within a day welcoming me to their Grassroots Army -- FPC Membership. Made two donations recently. I'm no expert on non-profits, but believe the reliance on donations versus requiring paid dues helps with their current non-profit status (there are different types of non-profits).
I don't believe FPC, an organization laden with gun lawyers, would open themselves up to massive liability telling members they're protected by the injunction and its clarification if they're not.
Web page on FPC regarding the Preliminary Injunction Clarification is here:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-clarifies-that-its-injunction-against-atf-pistol-brace-rule-covers-fpc-s-members
In addition, I downloaded the 5th Circuit Preliminary Injunction and its subsequent Clarification Order from the 5th Circuit. Note that "Unpublished Order" means it's not to be used as a cited precedent in other litigation as it isn't deemed to have sufficient precedential value. Doesn't stop some attorneys from citing an Unpublished Order or Decision in an oral or written pleading, but opposing counsel will immediately make note of that to the court. Very similar to a "Memorandum Opinion". That's all "Unpublished" means. It's not secret or hidden. It's public and has the force of law; i.e. it's enforceable via Indirect Contempt if violated. ATF is currently enjoined from enforcing the Pistol Brace Rule on Named Plaintiffs as per Order and Clarification. Period. Full Stop. Enough legal geek-speak.
From Court Listener:
Mock v. Garland Minute Entries on filings, pleadings, orders, etc. Scroll down to May 23rd and later for the recent motions and orders.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67115921/mock-v-garland/
For the TLDR crowd:
Preliminary Injunction Order (very short and sweet) also attached as PDF:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002.52.2_1.pdf
Clarification of Preliminary Injunction Order also attached as PDF:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002.78.2.pdf
Note that the clarification is very carefully worded so as to prevent anyone from claiming or construing it's a nationwide injunction. However, it doesn't limit the injunction geographically to the 5th Circuit, only to the named plaintiffs regardless of jurisdiction, which includes members of Firearms Policy Coalition. For those that want legal-geek, read the pleadings (motions and replies) immediately leading up to the Preliminary Injunction and its Clarification. Oral arguments are slated for June 29th.
The only source more authoritative on Federal Court litigation than Court Listener is PACER, a subscription required site that is an official U.S. Government electronic access to Federal Court documents (primarily for attorneys, judges, law clerks, law firms, legal news reporters, etc.). Court Listener gets everything it provides for free publicly from [drum roll] PACER.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
This is a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. It's not a permanent or final injunction or order or decision and is subject to change, modification, or rescission. It behooves everyone to keep an ear to the rails for changes. It wouldn't surprise me to see ATF attempt an interlocutory appeal to SCOTUS for a decision and order from its Justice that handles 5th Circuit to rescind the Preliminary Injunction. I wouldn't bet on it getting any traction as the 5th Circuit Justice is Samuel Alito and appellate level courts are loathe to do anything with interlocutory appeals anyway.
Hope this helps with additional knowledge about what just occurred in Mock v. Garland in the 5th Circuit.
I've been an FPC member since the middle of last year. Received this email from them late yesterday (Thursday, 26 May). There are no dues although they strongly encourage donations as that's their only source of revenue and aren't shy about it. I don't remember paying any last yea), and received an email within a day welcoming me to their Grassroots Army -- FPC Membership. Made two donations recently. I'm no expert on non-profits, but believe the reliance on donations versus requiring paid dues helps with their current non-profit status (there are different types of non-profits).
I don't believe FPC, an organization laden with gun lawyers, would open themselves up to massive liability telling members they're protected by the injunction and its clarification if they're not.
Web page on FPC regarding the Preliminary Injunction Clarification is here:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-clarifies-that-its-injunction-against-atf-pistol-brace-rule-covers-fpc-s-members
In addition, I downloaded the 5th Circuit Preliminary Injunction and its subsequent Clarification Order from the 5th Circuit. Note that "Unpublished Order" means it's not to be used as a cited precedent in other litigation as it isn't deemed to have sufficient precedential value. Doesn't stop some attorneys from citing an Unpublished Order or Decision in an oral or written pleading, but opposing counsel will immediately make note of that to the court. Very similar to a "Memorandum Opinion". That's all "Unpublished" means. It's not secret or hidden. It's public and has the force of law; i.e. it's enforceable via Indirect Contempt if violated. ATF is currently enjoined from enforcing the Pistol Brace Rule on Named Plaintiffs as per Order and Clarification. Period. Full Stop. Enough legal geek-speak.
From Court Listener:
Mock v. Garland Minute Entries on filings, pleadings, orders, etc. Scroll down to May 23rd and later for the recent motions and orders.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67115921/mock-v-garland/
For the TLDR crowd:
Preliminary Injunction Order (very short and sweet) also attached as PDF:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002.52.2_1.pdf
Clarification of Preliminary Injunction Order also attached as PDF:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002/gov.uscourts.ca5.213002.78.2.pdf
Note that the clarification is very carefully worded so as to prevent anyone from claiming or construing it's a nationwide injunction. However, it doesn't limit the injunction geographically to the 5th Circuit, only to the named plaintiffs regardless of jurisdiction, which includes members of Firearms Policy Coalition. For those that want legal-geek, read the pleadings (motions and replies) immediately leading up to the Preliminary Injunction and its Clarification. Oral arguments are slated for June 29th.
The only source more authoritative on Federal Court litigation than Court Listener is PACER, a subscription required site that is an official U.S. Government electronic access to Federal Court documents (primarily for attorneys, judges, law clerks, law firms, legal news reporters, etc.). Court Listener gets everything it provides for free publicly from [drum roll] PACER.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
This is a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. It's not a permanent or final injunction or order or decision and is subject to change, modification, or rescission. It behooves everyone to keep an ear to the rails for changes. It wouldn't surprise me to see ATF attempt an interlocutory appeal to SCOTUS for a decision and order from its Justice that handles 5th Circuit to rescind the Preliminary Injunction. I wouldn't bet on it getting any traction as the 5th Circuit Justice is Samuel Alito and appellate level courts are loathe to do anything with interlocutory appeals anyway.
Hope this helps with additional knowledge about what just occurred in Mock v. Garland in the 5th Circuit.
Last edited:
A couple of issues with this line of reasoning.
One, this is not our circuit court, so it may not apply if you are arrested here.
Two, joining after the ruling might not count in a court's eyes, since you were not a member at the time of the injunction.
In the end, it isn't going to matter. It is either a delay on having to comply if they lose, or it won't matter if they win.
One, this is not our circuit court, so it may not apply if you are arrested here.
Two, joining after the ruling might not count in a court's eyes, since you were not a member at the time of the injunction.
In the end, it isn't going to matter. It is either a delay on having to comply if they lose, or it won't matter if they win.
Twitter is a stinking cesspool of half-truths, bald faced lies, and propaganda. Finding factual or truthful postings is like a finding a non-ferrous tiny needle in a mondo haystack (which precludes using a magnet). I have a couple Twitter accounts and don't hang my hat on anything I read there. Some of it is entertaining in a twisted sense of how much rubbish and garbage is posted there battling for the minds of the gullible -- who don't use critical thinking and don't do their own research to original sources.
Jaybird1980
Grandmaster
The F-bomb has been there thing for a couple of years now.Going to firearmspolicy.org, click in the hamburger menu, and then click join does go to the gaudy Glock page. Googling “join firearms policy coalition” sends you here:
Join FPC today and get an official FPC Membership Kit!
Support pro-gun legal action, lobbying, and grassroots activism! Join the FPC Grassroots Army!www.firearmspolicy.org
I still wonder if someone hacked their page. The URL doesn’t look right and an F-bomb front and center isn’t their style.
joinfpc.org also takes you to the gaudy Glock page with f-bomb… weird
And I'd agree with those that say only those members at the time of the injunction, or even worse, those at the time of the filing would be covered. IANAL but I dont know of any other situations where a judge makes a ruling to cover a group of litigants that after-the-fact members would be included.
If a class action is filed on consumers of product X, Can somebody hear about the verdict, buy product X and get a payout?
