What makes that old man an expert? Is he a practicing attorney? Why should I risk my future freedom on what he says?Hellcat1 said:According to a lot of experts out there, this ruling should apply to ALL FPC members (although it isn't clear when you would have to have joined). Likewise, similar rulings have come down in favor of 2nd Amendment Coalition members, as well as GOA members. Here's just one video summarizing all three:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7-jNmep2c
Metal god said:Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .
The court order further indicated that the purpose of this clarification was simply to preserve the status quo ante for the parties and persons within the reasonable scope of the motion panels's injunction pending appeal.
So ... whether or not these injunctions extend beyond the scope of the state of Texas or the Fifth Circuit is a whole nother video that we will need to do.
Thanks for the link, MG. That's actually one of the videos I was originally looking for when I posted the above link. After not finding it, I posted the above video of the "old man" because I thought he did a good job of summarizing all three cases, including the GOA case.Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHgtyYa00E&t=13s&pp=ygUSd2FzaGluZ3RvbiBndW4gbGF3
Agreed, no reason for celebration quite yet, but it is looking promising.Interesting but, for people like me who are inherently averse to risk, hardly conclusive. Note that he says that this "probably" means FPC and SAF members are covered. Who wants to volunteer to be the test case?
Now let's look at two other statements from the video. At 04:40:
"Ante" is a Latin word that means "before." So if the purpose of the injunctions is to preserve the status quo as it was BEFORE the suits were filed, then the injunctions would apply to people who were members of the FPC and SAF BEFORE the suits were filed, but very well might not apply to people who only joined after the injunctions were handed down.
Next, at 06:24:
So even this practicing attorney isn't saying that these injunctions apply anywhere outside of the state of Texas (for the SAF) or the Fifth Circuit (for the FPC). He's not saying they don't -- he's saying that's a question that needs a separate video -- which to me suggests that it's not a clear-cut yes-or-no answer.
So, while it is good news that two courts have put the new rules on hold pending appeal, I don't think it's time to uncork the Champaign just yet.
"The rationale is clear: short-barreled rifles are more concealable than long guns, yet more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols," the White House said in a Monday statement. "As a result of this industry innovation, in the past few years we have witnessed mass shooters – including those in Dayton, Ohio, and Boulder, Colorado – use these ‘brace’ devices on heavy pistols in order to inflict mass carnage."
The whole point was to make AR pistols more accurate, so I guess they want us to have less accurate guns?
... more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols,...
MarkCO said:I hate cats, but cattongue is awesome!
Do remember that it was VP Biden who told us all one needed for defense was a double barrel shotgun, and we should just shoot it in the air and the police will come.....
In all fairness when most people shoot a double barrel shotgun in the air, the police often do come....
“[The brace] makes it where you can have a higher caliber bullet coming out of that gun.”