The armed attorneys likely made that vid before FPC's changes.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 ^^
I am not..........a felon.............
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
...
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.
Because it shows attempted deception?If anything, it likely does the opposite.
Because it shows attempted deception?
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.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.
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.
You have more faith in the judges approving warrants than I do.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.
I once thought that.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.
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.
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.You have more faith in the judges approving warrants than I do.
Interesting. In the military justice system, the Staff Judge Advocate advises the commander whether to prefer charges.…I have more faith in the federal courts than in others but that's an awfully low bar to get over.