$20+ FPC membership by 5/31/23 may "likely covered" under Mock v Garland preliminary injunction

LiveLife

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
33,034
Location
Northwest Coast
= $20+ FPC membership by 5/31/23 may "likely covered" under Mock v Garland preliminary injunction =

Mock v Garland (ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace rule) preliminary injunction - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12636713

"It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS.

All FPC Members are covered by this injunction."​

Firearms Policy Coalition statement regarding membership - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-regarding-membership

LAS VEGAS, NV (May 30, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued a statement regarding membership:

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.

This granted membership will ensure that all individuals who supported the work of the organization in the period with a financial contribution of $20 or more are officially recognized by FPC as an Individual Member. FPC will update its membership records accordingly on or about June 1, 2023, and then send a message confirming the granted membership status to all such individuals by email as soon as possible.

This one-time donor membership program will not affect the membership term of current FPC members.

Additionally, the Board established a new structure for the classification of certain types of members, including:
  • Individual Members (for individual persons)
  • Commercial Members (for for-profit entities)
  • Affiliate Members (for non-profit entities)
All current FPC members in good standing will be reorganized into the appropriate classification of membership under the new membership structure. To support the new membership structure, FPC will soon establish new online member application forms for each membership class. In the meantime:
  • INDIVIDUALS: If you are an individual who would like to Join FPC and support our work, please sign up online at JoinFPC.org.
  • INDUSTRY & NONPROFITS: If you are a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of goods, or a pro-freedom nonprofit organization, and would like to join FPC, please contact us at [email protected].
If you are a FPC member or donor and have a question, please contact the FPC support team at [email protected]. Inquiries will be responded to as quickly as possible in the order in which they are received.​
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Maybe, but that may not be the opinion of VCDL or Washington Gun Law that people who join FPC are covered after the date of the injunction.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson.

This is what a constitutional attorney posted regarding FPC membership for the preliminary injunction - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12637757
  • Firearms Policy Coalition members who are residents of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana are covered
  • FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are covered
  • New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership (Similar motion was raised for the bump stock case in 2019 but the anti 2A judge specified in the injunction the words "bonified members" to limit the scope of PI but in Mock v Garland case, such limitation was not placed and simply the word "members" was used - 11:50 minute of video)

And FPC clarified on their FB page that motion panel's Preliminary Injunction and merits panel's clarification reflects original brief's meaning of representing all members (members who donate monthly, one time, occasionally to include lifetime members when offered) - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1663304124740546560

The “since day one” was directly quoting from our brief, where we said that we have been representing all of our members from the very beginning of the case. It’s being misinterpreted because it lacks the context of the rest of our brief. See: http://firearmspolicy.org/mock

We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members.​
 
Last edited:
Join FPC and support them financially, but do NOT bet your freedom on the optimistic interpretation of this. It is far too easy for a court to decide that the protection (and remember this is just an injunction, not the death of the brace rule) only applies to the FPC members that were part of the organization at the time of this ruling.

Until a COURT rules on this, the opinion of folks on the internet are just interpretations.

I've been a member of FPC for some time, but any firearm I have that had a brace has had paperwork filed or the brace is no longer around (and I'd be the FPC membership covered by the injunction).

Certainly hope for the best on this, but prepare for the worst.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Join FPC and support them financially, but do NOT bet your freedom on the optimistic interpretation of this.

Until a COURT rules on this the opinion of folks on the internet are just interpretations.
Click to expand...
Agree, since the constitutional attorney stated "likely covered" ... I changed the thread title/OP to:

$20+ FPC membership by 5/31/23 may "likely covered" under Mock v Garland preliminary injunction​
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Maybe, but that may not be the opinion of VCDL or Washington Gun Law that people who join FPC are covered after the date of the injunction.

Great to send FPC money to support their effort, but don't bet your freedom on the possibility that you may be covered in this narrow injunction against the brace rule.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the judge in the SAF case said her injunction would be broadened if the injunction in Mock would be broadened... which to me would imply that all SAF members (or at least all SAF members as of the date the case was filed) would now be covered. I have been an SAF member for several years, in fact I am a life member, and I submitted a question on their website asking whether SAF members are now included. So far I have not received any response. Meanwhile I bought an upper with a 16" barrel which I guess I'll be putting on tomorrow. <sigh>
 
Wow just WOW~~!!



I've been saying for weeks, no, months. No, YEARS to support these great pro-2A organizations.

Well, if you're late to the party is better then never it I guess!

OK... Normal occasional sales pitch...WELCOME ALL ADULTS, supporting 2A organizations GOA/NRA/SAF/FPC etc. , even a mere $5 helps. Lawyers don't work for free!!
 
Yes, your support of pro-2A organizations is important and we have seen another example of why that is so. If you were a member at the time relief was given by the court, congratulations. I echo the concern about the protection for people joining after the fact, however. There is a lot at stake, so proceed with caution. The money is well spent, but is not like paying protection money to the mob.
 
I don't own a brace but I believe any erosion of gun rights is a slippery slope and been proven right in the past.



I paid the $30 bucks and became a member last night because this organization does phenomenal work to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hso
LiveLife said:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson.

This is what a constitutional attorney posted regarding FPC membership for the preliminary injunction - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12637757
  • Firearms Policy Coalition members who are residents of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana are covered
  • FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are covered
  • New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership (Similar motion was raised for the bump stock case in 2019 but the anti 2A judge specified in the injunction the words "bonified members" to limit the scope of PI but in Mock v Garland case, such limitation was not placed and simply the word "members" was used - 11:50 minute of video)

And FPC clarified on their FB page that motion panel's Preliminary Injunction and merits panel's clarification reflects original brief's meaning of representing all members (members who donate monthly, one time, occasionally to include lifetime members when offered) - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1663304124740546560

The “since day one” was directly quoting from our brief, where we said that we have been representing all of our members from the very beginning of the case. It’s being misinterpreted because it lacks the context of the rest of our brief. See: http://firearmspolicy.org/mock

We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members.​
Click to expand...
Disclaimer:

you are smarter and more knowledgeable then most non ConLaw or 2A attorney. Fact
 
Mark_Mark said:
you are smarter and more knowledgeable then most non ConLaw or 2A attorney. Fact
Click to expand...
You should talk to my wife of 28 years ... She has "very different" meaning of "smarter and knowledgeable". :rofl::p

Good news is 2 more preliminary injunctions issued today against pistol brace rule added to Mock v Garland and SAF v ATF:
sevt_chevelle said:
Just donated 100 bucks.

Does the FPC not have regular membership?
Click to expand...
Yes they do but I believe FPC board allowed this "one time" donation of $20+ to include even purchase of a T-shirt to be included in the "FPC member" group (for 7 month membership) for the preliminary injunction.

And after 12/31/23, "regular" membership will resume - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-regarding-membership

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.

This granted membership will ensure that all individuals who supported the work of the organization in the period with a financial contribution of $20 or more are officially recognized by FPC as an Individual Member. FPC will update its membership records accordingly on or about June 1, 2023, and then send a message confirming the granted membership status to all such individuals by email as soon as possible. This one-time donor membership program will not affect the membership term of current FPC members.​
 
Last edited:
old lady new shooter said:
FWIW, the judge in the SAF case said her injunction would be broadened if the injunction in Mock would be broadened... which to me would imply that all SAF members (or at least all SAF members as of the date the case was filed) would now be covered. I have been an SAF member for several years, in fact I am a life member, and I submitted a question on their website asking whether SAF members are now included. So far I have not received any response. Meanwhile I bought an upper with a 16" barrel which I guess I'll be putting on tomorrow. <sigh>
Click to expand...
Email received this evening from SAF:

Good evening-
I’m writing to you as you had inquired about the scope of the injunction in our ATF brace ban case. Earlier this evening, the judge issued a clarification that the injunction applies to SAF and our members. A copy of the order is attached.

Thank you for your support!

Adam Kraut
Executive Director
Second Amendment Foundation
​
I'm attaching the copy of the order to this post.

Meanwhile I also completed the replacement of my upper.
 

Attachments

  • 2023 05 31 Order.pdf
    89.2 KB · Views: 6
rust collector said:
hso said:
Maybe, but that may not be the opinion of VCDL or Washington Gun Law that people who join FPC are covered after the date of the injunction.
Click to expand...
I echo the concern about the protection for people joining after the fact, however. There is a lot at stake, so proceed with caution.
Click to expand...
After casting doubt whether new FPC members are covered by the preliminary injunction in this video, Washington Gun Law is now singing a different tune stating that ALL members of SAF and FPC are covered by the injunctions - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12640166

"... [SAF] is suing on behalf of all of the members, the injunction in SAF v ATF applies to all SAF members ... yes, does it appear as of Thursday, 6/1/23, that being a member of FPC or being a member of SAF ... will actually get you enjoined from the pistol brace rule according to two courts ... answer appears to be YES."​

This change falls in line with what constitutional attorney outlined on 5/29/23 that "New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12637757

And on 5/30/23, FPC posted clarification that FPC was representing all members, "not a subset of members" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12638546

The “since day one” was directly quoting from our brief, where we said that we have been representing all of our members from the very beginning of the case. It’s being misinterpreted because it lacks the context of the rest of our brief. See: http://firearmspolicy.org/mock

We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
fantastic ruling in the pistol brace case (Mock v Garland)
Replies
2
Views
575
rust collector
R
O
  • Sticky
Latest FPC Alerts - This thread is for your information only; no comments/replies, please
Replies
5
Views
696
old lady new shooter
O
O
SAF membership requests crash website following court clarification on braces
Replies
0
Views
342
old lady new shooter
O
L
  • Locked
Going after SARC
Replies
2
Views
5K
kansas coyote
K
B
  • Locked
You have to love the sense of frustration
Replies
12
Views
1K
fireflyfather
F
Back
Top