And lots of folks throwing good money after bad thinking they will get grandfathered in. Suckers.Saf.org gateway crashing. Think they're getting a lot of business.
The very definition of a fuster cluck.Looks like more injunctions dropping. This one in favor of individuals employed by the state of Texas, the GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation.
"On Sunday, May 28, 2023, the Board of Directors of Firearms Policy Coalition made a number of formal changes to the membership structure of the organization.
First, the Board granted an Individual Membership to all individual monetary donors of FPC who have supported FPC’s activities through financial contribution(s) of twenty U.S. Dollars ($20) or more from June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023, inclusive. Those memberships will have an effective date of June 1, 2022, and an expiration date of December 31, 2023, unless the Individual Member renews the granted membership on or before the end of 2023."
Looked to see if this had been posted here.Looks like more injunctions dropping. This one in favor of individuals employed by the state of Texas, the GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against (1) the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their
resident family members, and (2) individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or
its agencies. [footnote 9 reference]
The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the
expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland.
It is SO ORDERED.
Received telephone call from NRA with a reply to my inquiry. It was the same gentleman I had talked to earlier and he had received a reply to his email to the NRA legal team. Following are my notes from the second phone call:. . .
This morning I called NRA, transferred over to NRA-ILA and asked the person answering to explain specifically how NRA is participating in the lawsuit as they're not a named plaintiff and haven't filed an amicus brief. The individual didn't know the answer but has emailed the NRA legal team for specifics. He's hoping to get an answer back today.
. . .
Here, the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order likewise limited the injunctive relief to
“Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock.” Doc. 62, Prelim.
Inj. Order, 2–3. Thus, consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s order on clarification, the Court clarifies
its Order to confirm that the preliminary injunction entered in this case provides relief to both
SAF and its members. Here, SAF is suing “on behalf of itself . . . . [and] its members.” Doc. 50,
First Am. Compl., ¶ 8. Accordingly, SAF’s members are reasonably within the scope of the Court’s
preliminary injunction pending the Mock appeal. See Order at 2, Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319
(5th Cir. May 26, 2023), Doc. 78-2. A preliminary injunction to the contrary would fail to afford
complete relief. See id. (granting the motion for clarification “essentially for the reasons concisely
set forth in the [Plaintiffs’ Reply]”); see also Pls.’ Reply at 1–5, Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319 (5th
Cir. May 25, 2023), Doc. 75 (arguing a narrower interpretation of the injunction would fail to
provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs).
Accordingly, the Motion for Clarification is GRANTED, and the Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 62) applies to both SAF and its members. SO ORDERED. SIGNED: May 31, 2023.
If this is regarding the FRAC lawsuit in North Dakota in which Indiana is a named plaintiff, there's nothing . . . yet.Any word on Todd Rokita's lawsuit? I've emailed Rep Houchin several times. Gotten one response where she said she was gonna fight it. When asked for updates, nothing
Thanks for all the information. Thats alot of leg workIf this is regarding the FRAC lawsuit in North Dakota in which Indiana is a named plaintiff, there's nothing . . . yet.
Keep in mind a preliminary injunction from that court it could end up being quite narrow regarding the named states, just as the GOA lawsuit which included Texas only covers Texas state employees, not all Texas' residents (read the opinion in that injunction to see why it was narrowed). A state seeking standing before a Federal Court representing all its residents is exceedingly difficult with narrow conditions under which it can legitimately do so. It's still percolating.
In reviewing the status of that lawsuit I discovered an 8th one challenging the Pistol Brace Rule in the Eastern District of Virginia:
Miller v. Garland (1:23-cv-00195-RDA-JFA) District Court, E.D. Virginia (Alexandria Division)
Very little of its filings and orders is publicly available (for free). The plaintiff is a singular individual, Robert M. Miller, a firearm owner and dealer. Of note is Miller's motion for a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order was denied as his arguments did not rise to what is needed for such an extremely extraordinary relief. That order (TRO denial) is the only one available (for free). This does not affect any of the other Preliminary Injunctions. I skimmed through the court's rationale in that order, and IMHO the court's rationale is flawed. Nevertheless, that lawsuit will continue to plod onward in the Eastern District of Virginia. I presume it has been under the radar as it involves only one private party individual plaintiff. I don't plan on following this one unless it explodes with something dramatic as I believe it will be overtaken by events in other jurisdictions.