Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[Chris1948]

Several months ago I bought a16" barrel for my Glock 17 which is now installed in my MCK with brace.

 

[Eastexasrick]

The accused will stand trial and hung immediately. The bar is open!

 

[MountainGirl]

Be careful there. The armed attorneys talked about this on their YouTube channel. Their interpretation is it only applies to active members at the time of the filing of the petition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The armed attorneys likely made that vid before FPC's changes.
See post #1321 above ^^

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

The armed attorneys likely made that vid before FPC's changes.
See post #1321 above ^^

Possibly but I watched the live stream yesterday evening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[majormadmax]

I am not..........a felon.............

You mean you don't identify as a felon!

That's the beauty of it these days, all you have to do is declare you are something other than you really are, and people have to believe and accept it without question and despite all evidence to the contrary!!

 

[toddnjoyce]

Be careful there. The armed attorneys talked about this on their YouTube channel. Their interpretation is it only applies to active members at the time of the filing of the petition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

A couple of things on this topic as a general comment and not pointed at you personally. Both injunctions aren’t really plain language, but end up with similar effects.

For Mock v Garland, the injunction’s covered parties stipulation are those parties whose interests have been “represented since day one of this litigation”.

That can be read two ways; the first is more restrictive…only those who were members before the case was filed. The other reading is everyone at day one and those following.

GOA’s injunction is essentially the same; GOA and foundation members, Brady Brown, individual plaintiff family members, AND covered state of Texas employees.

ATF could argue both injunctions only apply to cases in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction in the most restrictive reading.

That’s the legalese. Since ATF doesn’t have a by-name list of who is a covered party, it would take ATF charging someone and then the person countering to prove injunctive relief.

 

[MountainGirl]

...

For Mock v Garland, the injunction’s covered parties stipulation are those parties whose interests have been “represented since day one of this litigation”.

That can be read two ways; the first is more restrictive…only those who were members before the case was filed. The other reading is everyone at day one and those following.
.....

Regarding "day one" - I wonder if FPC's structural change of "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..." will mitigate that first read's restriction.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Regarding "day one" - I wonder if FPC's structural change of "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..." will mitigate that first read's restriction.

If anything, it likely does the opposite.

 

[MountainGirl]

If anything, it likely does the opposite.

Because it shows attempted deception?

 

[toddnjoyce]

Because it shows attempted deception?

No. The case was filed on 1/31/2023. If your date of membership is 1 June 2023, then in the narrow reading of the injunction you were not a member on day 1 of the litigation and therefore not a covered party.

 

[RoadRunner]

You can read about the GOA's preliminary injunction against biden's brace ban here.

 

[MountainGirl]

No. The case was filed on 1/31/2023. If your date of membership is 1 June 2023, then in the narrow reading of the injunction you were not a member on day 1 of the litigation and therefore not a covered party.

I understand that, which then begs the question of why FPC would assign the recent joiners (like me) a Membership with the effective date of June 1, 2022 - 6 months before the case was filed.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I just can't picture the ATF showing up demanding my braced pistols, I whip out my GOA membership card and they say "Oh, sorry to bother you." and leave.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I understand that, which then begs the question of why FPC would assign the recent joiners (like me) a Membership with the effective date of June 1, 2022 - 6 months before the case was filed.

Never mind, I misunderstood the FPC Board’s decision.

Yes, FPC made a one-time effort to backdate memberships to grant inclusion to the injunction.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I just can't picture the ATF showing up demanding my braced pistols, I whip out my GOA membership card and they say "Oh, sorry to bother you." and leave.

I can’t picture ATF showing up at my house without a warrant, so they can go **** themselves.

If they have a warrant, then they’ve got enough probable cause for a judge to approve the search so you’ve already provided enough evidence to incriminate yourself.

 

[oldag]

I can’t picture ATF showing up at my house without a warrant, so they can go **** themselves.

If they have a warrant, then they’ve got enough probable cause for a judge to approve the search so you’ve already provided enough evidence to incriminate yourself.

You have more faith in the judges approving warrants than I do.

 

[toddnjoyce]

You have more faith in the judges approving warrants than I do.

Probably. While I’m certainly critical of the amount of liberty that can be taken to demonstrate probable cause, I’m also hopeful there are many fewer Gerald Goineses in the fed LE world than at the local level.

 

[oldag]

Probably. While I’m certainly critical of the amount of liberty that can be taken to demonstrate probable cause, I’m also hopeful there are many fewer Gerald Goineses in the fed LE world than at the local level.

I once thought that.

 

[benenglish]

Probably. While I’m certainly critical of the amount of liberty that can be taken to demonstrate probable cause, I’m also hopeful there are many fewer Gerald Goineses in the fed LE world than at the local level.

You have more faith in the judges approving warrants than I do.

At the federal level, there are structural/procedural problems. When my old job required a writ of entry to go inside someone's home, a federal district court judge had to sign off on it. The assistant US attorneys, though, were extremely jealous about their position as the only people who could talk to judges. They'd meet with an officer 5 minutes before they were scheduled to go into chambers, get a basic rundown where the officer had to compress maybe 6 months of work into a 90 second briefing, and head on back.

If a judge had a question, the AUSA would have had no idea how to answer it.

No writ was ever turned down even though I can think of one or two that should have been. Apparently, federal judges never asked questions, at least for my bureau.

It was kind of disheartening.

It was also a kind of "my agency is more prestigious than your agency" dynamic that fubar'd many a case. I once was on a team where the SAUSA refused to argue our case on the most basic point - the federal district court didn't have jurisdiction in this particular matter. He told us that he wouldn't make that argument, even though it was correct, because "Telling a judge in his own courtroom that there are limits to his authority will piss him off. I have to argue plenty of other cases in front of this guy and I'm not jeopardizing those cases for you guys."

There were 9 core team members and 6 occasional consulting team members. We all saw 3 years work go down the drain in 15 minutes because the SAUSA was a total chickenshit.

I have more faith in the federal courts than in others but that's an awfully low bar to get over.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…I have more faith in the federal courts than in others but that's an awfully low bar to get over.

Interesting. In the military justice system, the Staff Judge Advocate advises the commander whether to prefer charges.

I could not give non-judicial punishment (NJP) unless the SJA was satisfied there was enough evidence to support a prosecution because
1. The member being served NJP had the option to refuse the NJP in favor of a court martial to get a jury of peers;
2. The SJA would be the prosecutor if NJP went to court martial so chain of evidence and PC had to be preserved from the outset.

Having said that, I’ve seen the investigative services (OSI, CID, NCIS) railroad subjects of an investigation and I’ve also seen both prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the system, despite the myriad appeals and set-aside processes. While those instances are rare, they can be devastating to an otherwise innocent subject.*

I think my biggest criticism of our judicial system is the ability for prosecutorial misconduct without real penalty. Personally, I would like to see that behavior become a capital offense.