days delayed ()
+ checks in queue
NJ NICS data as of 
 days delayed ()
+ checks in queue
NJ NICS data as of 

FPC Scores HUGE Win in Pistol Brace Ban Case

Share this story

On May 24, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction pending appeal in the Mock v. Garland case challenging the ATF’s pistol brace ban that was to take effect on May 31.

The Fifth Circuit wrote in its order, “IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available Oral Argument Calendar. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ Opposed Motion For a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.”

While that was good news for the plaintiffs in that case, the ruling caused some confusion about the class of people for whom the preliminary injunction was effective.

Separately, in a case known as SAF, v. ATF, et. al., a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s pistol brace ban writing, “The Court grants in part the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319 (5th Cir.).

Just yesterday, the panel of judges in the Mock v. Garland case issued an order providing clarification on who is covered under the preliminary injunction.

At question was whether those who are members of the Firearms Coalition Policy are covered under the PI.

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. There, the appellants acknowledge that, “[a]lthough a nationwide injunction would have functionally addressed the question of scope, on which Plaintiffs now seek clarity, Plaintiffs understand that one was not given . . . . Instead, Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ‘Plaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) 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.

According to the FPC, it seems that anyone who is a member of the Firearms Policy Coalition is now covered by the preliminary injunction.

Share this story

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Tell us what you think!x