Breaking: ATF Changes Their Mind On Pistol Braces AGAIN

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Where they bust the sod in South Tulsa County.
Have you seen the "objective criteria" worksheet? It's a nightmare. And it still doesn't exempt anyone specifically. If your brace is "objectively" determined to turn your pistol into an SBR, you're affected whether you're disabled or not. There's also other criteria they factor in like the overall length and weight of the firearm.

No one is exempt from the stupidity of the bureaucrats at the ATF.
They should hand it over to ChatGPT to make the final determination.
 
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
8,528
Reaction score
27,013
Location
Greater Francis, OK metropolitan area

jakeman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
4,596
Reaction score
6,689
Location
Blanchard, America
You had to be a member of the fpc or customer of maxim when the lawsuit was filed. Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members
I don't think that's right.
The FPC is saying they believe it doesn't matter when you join...you're covered by the injunction.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion though I've yet to see a definitive legal response.

I concur.

See below tweet:

 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
8,468
Reaction score
9,775
Location
Yukon
The FPC is saying they believe it doesn't matter when you join...you're covered by the injunction.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion though I've yet to see a definitive legal response.
I hope I’m wrong. It is how I interpreted day one of this litigation. We should be able to find the fifth circuit courts ruling somewhere.

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order: "This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ʻPlaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
16,360
Reaction score
12,093
Location
Tulsa
to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."

“since” not “prior” indicates to me there’s no cut-off date.
 

jakeman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
4,596
Reaction score
6,689
Location
Blanchard, America
I hope I’m wrong. It is how I interpreted day one of this litigation. We should be able to find the fifth circuit courts ruling somewhere.

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order: "This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ʻPlaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.' That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members."


I believe you are misinterpreting that, and so does FPC as they are using the ruling to support a recruitment drive.

From the link below:

It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS. LET'S ****ING GO!!

 

Latest posts

Top Bottom