In granting summary judgment in favor of SAF, the court granted both declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring the ban unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement for the plaintiffs, including SAF members. Originally filed in June 2024, the lawsuit challenges the ban on firearms carry in U.S. Post Offices and on postal property. SAF is joined in the case, FPC v. Bondi, by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens. [More]
So, all of these?
And for all of us or just “plaintiffs, including SAF members”?
Why did “pro-gun” Pam Bondi have to be sued? Why didn’t she stand down, or better, denounce the ban and side with plaintiffs?
And will she appeal?
Always with Gottlieb. His greasy insatiable palms just won’t go away
SAF mailer today claims ruing covers only plaintiffs and their members, but everywhere:
NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS: ALL SAF Members Protected by This Injunction, Not Only in Texas
The plain text of Judge O’Connor’s Injunction applies its protection to “Plaintiffs (and their members),” without any additional language limiting its geographical scope. We read Judge O’Connor’s words on their face: as meaning that SAF members are protected – regardless of where they live.
In its briefing, the DOJ expressly argued for more limited injunctive relief, or the opportunity to argue for it at least, if the court planned to rule in our favor. The Court did rule in our favor, and elected to ignore the Government’s request to argue in favor of continuing to trample the rights of some Americans, based on where they lived.