Where can a person sign up?
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
They should hand it over to ChatGPT to make the final determination.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.
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.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
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.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.
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 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."
Enter your email address to join: