DOJ Strikes Back, BUT - PROOF They Asked For FPC & SAF Member Names In Attempt To Limit 2A Win

Published on October 29, 2025
Duration: 24:22

This video details the Department of Justice's (DOJ) attempt to limit a court victory for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) regarding carrying firearms in post offices. The DOJ filed a motion to modify the injunction, claiming they cannot comply without a verified list of FPC and SAF members, which the organizations refuse to provide due to privacy concerns. The speaker presents evidence, including an email exchange, to counter the DOJ's public statements and argues this action is an attempt to control and shrink the scope of a Second Amendment win.

Quick Summary

The DOJ is attempting to limit a court victory that allowed FPC and SAF members to carry firearms in post offices. They filed a motion claiming they need a list of members to comply, a request the organizations refuse to grant due to privacy concerns. This move is seen as an effort to shrink the scope of the Second Amendment win.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: DOJ Strikes Back
  2. 01:17Major News from Texas: DOJ's New Motion
  3. 02:08Recap: Post Office Carry Ban Victory
  4. 02:28DOJ's Request for Member Names
  5. 05:26Case Recap: SAF & FPC Lawsuit Details
  6. 06:39DOJ's Motion to Clarify/Modify Injunction
  7. 07:02DOJ's Claim: No Member List = Impossible Position
  8. 08:21Proof: DOJ's Court Filing (Oct 28, 2025)
  9. 11:07Contradiction: DOJ Denied Asking for Names
  10. 13:55DOJ Cites Article III Standing
  11. 16:15The Revealing Email Chain
  12. 16:46Email Proof: Samuel Holt to Cooper & Kirk
  13. 18:11FPC/SAF Response: Objecting to List
  14. 19:23Timeline: Friday vs. Monday Statements
  15. 20:08Actions Speak Louder Than Words
  16. 21:25QR Codes: Join SAF & FPC
  17. 22:03Dangerous Precedent if DOJ Wins
  18. 23:16Call to Action: Support 2A Organizations

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DOJ's main argument for modifying the post office carry ban injunction?

The DOJ claims they cannot comply with the injunction without a verified list of FPC and SAF members. They argue that without this list, they don't know who is protected by the ruling and are in an 'impossible position' regarding enforcement, potentially risking contempt of court.

Did the DOJ previously deny asking for member names in relation to this case?

Yes, the video presents evidence that the DOJ, through attorney Samuel Holt, requested a verified list of FPC and SAF members on October 3, 2025. This contradicts earlier public statements made by the DOJ denying such requests in a related context.

What are the implications if the DOJ succeeds in narrowing the post office carry ban injunction?

If the DOJ succeeds, the injunction's protection could be limited to only a few individuals, not the entire membership of FPC and SAF. This could set a dangerous precedent, making it harder for gun rights groups to protect their members from federal overreach and discouraging new members from joining.

Why are FPC and SAF refusing to provide their member lists to the DOJ?

FPC and SAF are refusing to provide their member lists to protect member privacy. They argue that the DOJ does not need the list to comply with the injunction and that the judgment should apply to all members regardless of when they joined.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News

View all →