I'm going with the email I got from FPC that was sent to all its members - that it applies to all its members regardless of jurisdiction - plus what I read in the court documents which isn't just the two I posted. Note that applicability to only a circuit court's jurisdiction isn't hard and fast. Circuit courts have issued orders applicable to all plaintiffs like this before, and occasionally applicable nationally. Same occurs with District Courts. Benitez in Southern District of Calif. has issued a number of decisions and injunctions applicable to the entire state of California and all four of its Districts, not just his. Plaintiffs are sometimes added after an injunction is issued, including automatically. Nothing in the injunction excludes anyone based on their geographic location or when they became an FPC member. It's everything that was filed in their motions and oppositions to motions that lead up to them. Lengthy reading that only a few will bother with. And I will be watching for anything significant as the case progresses . . . as the injunction is preliminary.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.
Unlike the NRA, FPC are GOA are two major organizations with multiple lawsuits ongoing fighting unconstitutional Federal and State gun laws. Unlike the state and federal governments they tangle with with unlimited funds, they rely solely on dues/donations. The cost of what they do in litigation, especially in the Federal Courts, is high.Well I joined. Just in case. Not that I own any of these contraptions.
Most decisions, such as 2008 Heller, 2010 McDonald, 2016 Caetano and most recently the 2022 Bruen have an impact beyond the original, immediate and extant issue. As an example, the one-step "History and Tradition" test versus the former two-step "Public Good Balancing" test is being applied across the board, including with the "assault weapon and magazine bans", having spilled out of the 2008 Heller decision, and subsequently reinforced by the McDonald and Bruen. None of those three dealt specifically with semi-auto weapons or magazine bans. Recently in California it was applied to their approved handgun roster case.
It's why I joined FPC and GOA some time ago.