National Fifth circuit injunction against the ATF pistol brace rule.

[Pete F]

I think it's when you log into your account... over on the right middle side of the page is (?)

View attachment 1427959

I don't see anything else that might relate to status on their website either.

I wasn't sure if Supporter meant Member. I found mine and it said Supporter also. Thanks for the clarification @Yarome

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Saw this on mark smith four boxes diner YouTube guy website that lists three of the brace rule injunction suits. It's from a while ago.


Have not watched the 8 min video yet

 

[Yarome]

Have not watched the 8 min video yet

Old info as well. Accurate summations but status on them is outdated.

 

[peteNW503]

Maybe I have been living under a rock but join FPC and you're good? Or you need to join multiple organizations?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Maybe I have been living under a rock but join FPC and you're good? Or you need to join multiple organizations?

It's free to join FPC, so why not join. I wouldn't assume "you're good" by joining though. Tons of unknowns and also likely temporary nature of it. But joining hurts nothing and may help.

Also donating to FPC, GOA, SAF is probably the single best thing we can do for the cause right now in terms of effectively stopping unconstitutional gun laws. GOA has an injunction pending and SAF also has an injunction completed (and it's assumed their members are covered). I think SAF and GOA are either $15 or $30 per year to join but don't quote me on that.

 

[peteNW503]

It's free to join FPC, so why not join. I wouldn't assume "you're good" by joining though. Tons of unknowns and also likely temporary nature of it. But joining hurts nothing and may help.

Also donating to FPC, GOA, SAF is probably the single best thing we can do for the cause right now in terms of effectively stopping unconstitutional gun laws. GOA has an injunction pending and SAF also has an injunction completed (and it's assumed their members are covered). I think SAF and GOA are either $15 or $30 per year to join but don't quote me on that.

I completely hear what you're saying. Pretty sure it's $30 to join FPC not free but I'll definitely check them out!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I completely hear what you're saying. Pretty sure it's $30 to join FPC not free but I'll definitely check them out!

View attachment 1428475

Go to their main site you can join for free.

 

[peteNW503]

Go to their main site you can join for free.

I stand corrected thank you. You are a good man!

 

[RX-79G]

It seems unlikely that you can join class action after the fact - but I could certainly be wrong about that.

 

[Yarome]

Food for thought and seems to sum it up pretty well, IMO.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I stand corrected thank you. You are a good man!

Credit goes to @Flopsweat cuz he is the one who found it and posted it on another thread. Just passing the info along. Cheers!

 

[Flopsweat]

Credit goes to @Flopsweat cuz he is the one who found it and posted it on another thread. Just passing the info along. Cheers!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This video has some good perspective 2nd hand from FPC. I'm much more inclined to agree with this interpretation than the WA gun law guy's interpretation personally. It is much more logical to me especially in terms of the "tantamount to nationwide injunction" phrase and also it explains the "since day one" wording very well.

 

[Yarome]

I'm much more inclined to agree with this interpretation than the WA gun law guy's interpretation

Uhh... I must have missed it. What is different about the two interpretations?

The assessments sound absolutely identical to me. Other than one being more definitive/hopeful "members are covered" and one more "I hope that's true".

The linked video didn't seem to touch much on the "tantamount to nationwide" topic at all... that I heard... other than reading the text of the order.

Nevertheless... it's all good food for thought, but the reality seems to be... they don't "know" either way. They are assuming.. and I agree.. that since no limitation was ordered on membership dates that joining today still falls under the order protection, but no one has asked the judge for clarification on it... that I'm aware of.

Typically though within our legal system is the principle that unless it is prohibited/limited by act of law then it is allowed. The judge placed no restriction on the terms, conditions or prerequisites of what constitutes a "member"... right? Not that if there wasn't a test case that the further clarification or argument might come down to, "at the time the injunction order was issued" or even "at the time of the court filing".

I don't see any legal backing for FPC to say it is definitively allowed by the text of the order. Just... it appears so, it "should" rightfully be so, we hope so and we believe it is so. Personally, I agree, but... I still see room it could easily be argued.

 

[Flopsweat]

Uhh... I must have missed it. What is different about the two interpretations?

The assessments sound absolutely identical to me. Other than one being more definitive/hopeful "members are covered" and one more "I hope that's true".

The linked video didn't seem to touch much on the "tantamount to nationwide" topic at all... that I heard... other than reading the text of the order.

Nevertheless... it's all good food for thought, but the reality seems to be... they don't "know" either way. They are assuming.. and I agree.. that since no limitation was ordered on membership dates that joining today still falls under the order protection, but no one has asked the judge for clarification on it... that I'm aware of.

Typically though within our legal system is the principle that unless it is prohibited/limited by act of law then it is allowed. The judge placed no restriction on the terms, conditions or prerequisites of what constitutes a "member"... right? Not that if there wasn't a test case that the further clarification or argument might come down to, "at the time the injunction order was issued" or even "at the time of the court filing".

I don't see any legal backing for FPC to say it is definitively allowed by the text of the order. Just... it appears so, it "should" rightfully be so, we hope so and we believe it is so. Personally, I agree, but... I still see room it could easily be argued.

It seems to me that if they meant only members as of a certain date, they'd have come out and said it. It was a request for clarification, after all.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Mark smith video on the injunction. He explores the issue of maxim's defense customers (and their families) who are covered. Seems to say that their customers must necessarily include future customers because a business can not stay in business without selling to new customers. That discussion starts at about the 19:04 mark.

This not from mark smith -> A more cynical and limiting interpretation could be that only customers who already purchased an actual brace from them are covered. Or perhaps future customers who purchase a brace from them (not from mark smith video).

In the video he also briefly discusses the Goa case and the North Dakota case.

Screenshot from the video:

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Ultimate pistol brace cover your butt recipe:

1)Apply for brace rule amnesty
2) become member of FPC (free), GOA, and SAF
3) buy a maxim defense brace (or perhaps just a hat or gun part?)

Of course if doing #1 you prob won't ever need #2 or #3. I have a feeling #2 and #3 will be temporary anyways but who knows.

 

[Yarome]

Ultimate pistol brace cover your butt recipe:

1)Apply for brace rule amnesty

Of course if doing #1 you prob won't ever need #2 or #3. I have a feeling #2 and #3 will be temporary anyways but who knows.

Exactly. #1 and everything else is moot, but you forgot one.

1a) Remove the brace and wait out the storm. Patience often pays dividends.

IIRC, the alphabet said they have something like 125k amnesty applications to date. That's really not all that many that seem to be taking the registration route... if you believe the numbers that there are something in the neighborhood of 20-40mil of em out there.

Kind of seems to be shaping up a lot like the bump stock compliance rate... which makes you wonder how many are taking the shovel and backyard route, hu(?) Although I'm sure there are a fair share that are simply reconfiguring. I guess that would be "1b)".

Reconfig, wait out the storm and reconfig back.

 

[Yarome]

Mark smith video on the injunction. He explores the issue of maxim's defense customers (and their families) who are covered. Seems to say that their customers must necessarily include future customers because a business can not stay in business without selling to new customers. That discussion starts at about the 19:04 mark.

His analysis of the citation, in affect, is affirming that "customers" may include an infinite number of future customers would also seem to support the idea that "members" would... likewise... include any infinite number of future members... in the case of FPC.

To date... that's the most complete and compelling analysis of the order I've seen. Makes sense!

 

[chipotle]

Ultimate pistol brace cover your butt recipe:

1)Apply for brace rule amnesty
2) become member of FPC (free), GOA, and SAF
3) buy a maxim defense brace (or perhaps just a hat or gun part?)

Of course if doing #1 you prob won't ever need #2 or #3. I have a feeling #2 and #3 will be temporary anyways but who knows.

To be frank, I would rather touch a spent nuclear fuel rod than these fake "amnesty" form 1 registrations.

You are admitting to ATF (with photo evidence!) that an NFA violation occurred, and you don't even get a true tax stamp for your trouble (literally-they don't give you an NFA tax stamp, just a waiver).