Is Now a Good Time to Start a Firearms Business?
January 27, 2012
From time to time, clients will inquire about when is the best time to start a firearms business? I always respond, “When isn’t it a good time to start a firearms business?” Obviously, there are no crystal balls and a lot depends on your own marketing ability, as well as the demeanor of the current Congress and Presidency. Nevertheless, there was a recent article in the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) publication SHOT Business. In this article, it spoke to the owners of Del-Ton, a husband and wife team that started their company in 2000 by selling a few items on Ebay. When Tony Autry and his wife, Kassandra, began this venture, it was part-time. Tony kept his day job in telecommunications. However, they both wanted to make the business a full-time venture.
Slowly, they began building upper assemblies. Within a year, they were producing so many assemblies that they had to build a 1,000-square foot steel building to accommodate the growing business. But, little did they know that by 2007, they would need a 4,500-square foot building to accommodate their needs! But that too was outgrown by 2009, when they acquired a 10,800-square foot building. Now, they have released the 4,500-square foot building, as a back up, because the 10,800-square foot building is already too small! Carrying more than 1,600 products, which they expect to expand shortly, Del-Ton is an example of how you can build your own dream and be part of the firearms industry.
If you are interested in starting a business or acquiring an FFL, contact me today, so that we can discuss your needs. We have tailored operating agreements for FFLs and other business-types in the firearms industry. When it comes to seeing your dream come true, we are ready and able to help you make that dream become a reality.
Citizen’s Firearms Law Seminar – May 5, 2012
January 3, 2012
On May 5, 2012, Attorneys Joshua Prince and Eric Winter will be conducting a citizen’s firearms law seminar, which is being presented by the Muhlenberg Area Shooting Association, Inc (MASA). Topics to be discussed are Open and Concealed Carry, Self-Defense, Estate Planning, Trusts, Wills, and the PA Castle Doctrine and other state and federal laws. For more information, see the flier here. It is open to the public and will begin at 1pm. Because of past high-demand for seminars taught by Attorney Prince, you must reserve seating by calling 610-670-6727.
I often receive inquiries from clients regarding whether a 3rd DUI prevents him/her from being able to purchase, possess and own a firearm. While it will depend on the date of conviction, as the DUI Grading statutes have changed, since February 1, 2004, the current grading has been in effect and which would at least prohibit you under federal law, if not also under state law.
Recently, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court heard the appeal of a Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Denial of Mr. Richard Perkoski, in the matter of Perkoski v PSP. The issue before the Court was “whether the PSP accurately deemed Perkoski’s 2001 conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (2001 DUI) a misdemeanor of the first degree, which precludes him from possessing a firearm.” As for some background, Mr. Perkoski was convicted of DUI offenses in 1998, 1990, 2001, and 2002. In 2009, he attempted to purchase a firearm and was denied, as the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) reported that Mr. Perkoski was ineligible to purchase firearms due a disqualifying conviction. He then filed a (PICS) Challenge, where the PSP reaffirmed its denial under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), alleging that the offense was misdemeanor offense punishable by more than two years.
Mr. Perkoski then appealed to the Office of the Attorney General, where an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard his appeal. The ALJ affirmed the PSP’s determination. Mr. Perkoski then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which found that under the DUI statutes that were in effect at the time of is 2001 conviction, the applicable grading of the conviction was a misdemeanor 1. Since the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor 1 is five (5) years, he would be prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).
However, while the court spent time explaining the difference between the grading and penalty portions of the DUI statute, the court seems to have glossed over whether the previous DUI grading section, 75 PA.C.S. 3731(e)(1), imposed any maximum sentence, short of the maximum sentence imposed by a misdemeanor 1. While it is unlikely that the legislature limited the maximum penalty, it is a possibility and unfortunately, I do not have a copy of 75 PA.C.S. 3731, as it has since been repealed.
The interesting aspect to this case is that while under the current law, specifically 75 PA.C.S. 3801 et seq., a second offense has the possibility of resulting in a misdemeanor 1 (if it is of the highest rate), under 3731(e)(1), a second offense was only punishable by a misdemeanor 2. Hence, whether a second DUI is prohibiting, will depend on when the conviction was entered and under what grading.
If you have questions regarding whether you are prohibited due to a DUI conviction or have other Firearms Law issues, contact us today to discuss your rights.
Is the Pennsylvania State Police Changing Docket Entries 11 Years Post-Conviction to Support Firearm Purchase Denials?
November 10, 2011
Is the Pennsylvania State Police Changing Docket Entries 11 Years Post-Conviction to Support Firearm Purchase Denials? It just may be.
I am currently involved in a case that seems to suggest that the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) may be changing docket entries, where it is 11 years post-conviction, and only now, after a denial to purchase a firearm, is the docket morphing into something that it was not before. This is extremely shocking and only through a fluke that I caught on to it.
After speaking with the client and learning that he had just been denied the purchase of a firearm, based on a DUI conviction in PA, I pulled his docket. The docket only reflected that he had been convicted of one subsection of PA’s old DUI law, 18 PA.C.S. 3731, in 1999. The grading of that offense was not listed. The second subsection that was charged had no disposition, meaning there was no indication of whether it was a conviction, finding of not guilt, or dismissed.
Two days later, I went and pulled his docket, again. To my surprise, this 11 year old docket had been changed! The docket now reflected a hung jury for the second subsection charged, along with a listing stating that a conviction for that subsection was a misdemeanor 1. The conviction for the other subsection still did not list the grading. This caught my attention, as there was no reason for an 11 year old docket to be modified, unless someone at the PSP was making changes because of the recent denial.
I then went to the law library to pull the old DUI Code and all the amendments. I was able to ascertain that at the time of his conviction, the disposition should have been a misdemeanor 2, which is not prohibiting, in this context, for the purchase and ownership of a firearm. Upon returning to the office, I pulled the docket for a third time, only to find that the docket had been modified again! Now, the grading for his conviction was, in my opinion, erroneously listed as a misdemeanor 1, which would support the PSP’s denial. Of course, none of the previous dockets are available, as they have been overridden by the newest docket.
This is extremely concerning given the fact that it appears that the PSP is now modifying docket entries to support its denials. There is no other explanation for why the dockets, some 11 years post-conviction, would all of the sudden start changing. More interestingly, the changes specifically, and contrary to law, support the denial. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If you have been denied the purchase of a firearm because of a DUI or other conviction, or otherwise have been denied your Second Amendment Right, contact me today to discuss your possible options.
New Legislation – HB 1668 – The Right to Transport Firearms Without a License to Carry Firearms
November 4, 2011
There is currently new legislation, HB 1668, which deals with the right to transport firearms without a license to carry firearms (LTCF). As many are aware, there are stark limitations on one’s ability to transport a firearm, pursuant to 18 PA.C.S. § 6106, when that individual does not have an LTCF, which I previously discussed here.
As I explained in my previous article, and the reason that I recommend everyone obtain an LTCF in PA, regardless of whether the individual plans on conceal carrying, is that the law only permits one, absent an LTCF, to transport the firearm, unloaded, between the place of purchase and his/her home, between place of repair and his/her home, between his/her business and his/her home, and a place of instruction/range and his/her home, as well as, a few other locations. Hence, if one were to go to the range, meet up with some friends, and then decide to go out to lunch, before heading home, that individual would be in violation of the law, since the law does not permit are deviations in the transport of the firearms.
HB 1668 seeks to change the current law and provide that an individual, who is not otherwise prohibited and who does not have a License to Carry Firearms, may transport a firearm within the Commonwealth, so long as, 1. the firearm is not loaded and 2. the firearm is not being transported for purposes prohibited under the laws of the Commonwealth. This language would permit someone, like in the above example, to go out to lunch with his/her friends, without violating the law. Representative Tim Krieger, who proposed this legislation, issued a memorandum to his House brethren, explaining this legislation and asking for their support. As Representive Krieger states, “The law is confusing and unnecessarily complex.”
As of October 24, 2011, there are currently 99 sponsors of this legislation. As there are 203 Representatives, if Representative Krieger can obtain 102 sponsors, it would result in more than the 50% majority requirement to enact the legislation. This is, of course, assuming that all sponsors will vote to enact the legislation and have not merely added their names as sponsors to watch the bill and make sure that they don’t miss the opportunity to vote against it.
Contact your Representatives, today, to make sure that they are in favor of this necessary legislation and ask them to sponsor it!
Does a 3rd DUI Prevent You from Being Able to Purchase, Possess and Own a Firearm?
September 25, 2011
I often receive inquiries from clients regarding whether a 3rd Dui prevents him/her from being able to purchase, possess and own a firearm. While it will depend on the date of conviction, as the DUI Grading statutes have changed, since February 1, 2004, the current grading has been in effect and which would at least prohibit you under federal law, if not also under state law.
Recently, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court heard the appeal of a Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Denial of Mr. Richard Perkoski, in the matter of Perkoski v PSP. The issue before the Court was “whether the PSP accurately deemed Perkoski’s 2001 conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (2001 DUI) a misdemeanor of the first degree, which precludes him from possessing a firearm.” As for some background, Mr. Perkoski was convicted of DUI offenses in 1998, 1990, 2001, and 2002. In 2009, he attempted to purchase a firearm and was denied, as the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) reported that Mr. Perkoski was ineligible to purchase firearms due a disqualifying conviction. He then filed a (PICS) Challenge, where the PSP reaffirmed its denial under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), alleging that the offense was misdemeanor offense punishable by more than two years.
Mr. Perkoski then appealed to the Office of the Attorney General, where an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard his appeal. The ALJ affirmed the PSP’s determination. Mr. Perkoski then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which found that under the DUI statutes that were in effect at the time of is 2001 conviction, the applicable grading of the conviction was a misdemeanor 1. Since the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor 1 is five (5) years, he would be prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).
However, while the court spent time explaining the difference between the grading and penalty portions of the DUI statute, the court seems to have glossed over whether the previous DUI grading section, 75 PA.C.S. 3731(e)(1), imposed any maximum sentence, short of the maximum sentence imposed by a misdemeanor 1. While it is unlikely that the legislature limited the maximum penalty, it is a possibility and unfortunately, I do not have a copy of 75 PA.C.S. 3731, as it has since been repealed.
The interesting aspect to this case is that while under the current law, specifically 75 PA.C.S. 3801 et seq., a second offense has the possibility of resulting in a misdemeanor 1 (if it is of the highest rate), under 3731(e)(1), a second offense was only punishable by a misdemeanor 2. Hence, whether a second DUI is prohibiting, will depend on when the conviction was entered and under what grading.
If you have questions regarding whether you are prohibited due to a DUI conviction or have other Firearms Law issues, contact us today to discuss your rights.
Pennsylvania Law Regarding the Killing of a Dog that is Attacking You or Your Pet
September 23, 2011
On occasion, clients will inquire whether Pennsylvania has any laws regarding the killing of a dog that is attacking him/her or his/her pet. To the surprise of most, Pennsylvania law does have a provision relating to this issue.
Under 3 P.S. 459-501, Killing dogs, dogs as nuisances, Pennsylvania law authorizes any individual to kill a dog which that individual sees in the act of “pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing other dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding, or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this act.” Furthermore, the statute grants immunity from liability to any person that acts within this scope.
However, there is an exception to the law. Specifically, “Licensed dogs, when accompanied by their owner or handler, shall not be included under the provisions of this section unless caught in the act of pursuing, wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing any dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings.” 3 P.S. 459-501(c).
Needless to say, before acting, one should always consider the love and affection that the owner of the dog has for it. It is likely no different than the love and affection that you share with your pet. Always consider less-than-lethal alternatives, whenever possible, if you find yourself or your pet in this situation.
Pennsylvania’s new Castle Doctrine (actually a Stand Your Ground Doctrine), known as H.B. 40, goes into effect today, August 29, 2011.
I previously blogged about Govenor Corbett signing the H.B. 40 on June 28, 2011, which made the the new law effective in 60 days, correlating to August 29, 2011. I also reviewed the Good of H.B. 40and the Bad and Ugly of H.B. 40.
While H.B. 40 is a vast improvement over the existing law, H.B. 40 has also ushered in new issues that will need to be reviewed by the courts and which are likely to result in different interpretations until the PA Supreme Court determines the correct interpretation.
If you have been involved in the self-defense shooting, or just have questions regarding H.B. 40, contact our firm today so that we can assist in you in understanding this new legislation and ensuring that the protections afforded by H.B. 40 are adhered to by the District Attorney and other attorneys that may seek to charge you criminally or sue you.
Florida Enacts Individual Liability for Violations of Firearm Preemption but Will Pennsylvania Follow Suit?
August 18, 2011
Florida Enacts Individual Liability for Violations of Firearm Preemption but Will Pennsylvania Follow Suit?
Effective October 1st, 2011, Florida has enacted individual liability for violations of its firearms preemption laws but will Pennsylvania follow suit? Similar to Pennsylvania, since 1987, Florida law contains a preemption statute which prohibits any county, municipality, or township from enacting any regulation, policy or ordinance that limits the ownership, possession, and transfer of firearms. Pennsylvania’s preemption statute can be found at 18 Pa.C.S. 6120 .
Similar to Pennsylvania’s preemption statute, Florida’s preemption statute, prior to this new legislation, lacked any form of enforcement mechanism, as there was no penalty for non-compliance. That all changed with Florida’s HB 45, which now provides for individual liability of $5000 for any public official who passes or enforces gun regulations contrary to the statute. The Governor also has the power to remove any public official for enacting or enforcing any local gun laws.
But, will Pennsylvania follow suit? Representative Metcalfe has already proposed a similar amendment to PA’s preemption statute, known as HB 1523. If enacted, this would provide for the reimbursement of actual costs and reasonable attorney fees of the aggrieved party. Moreover, depending on whether the municipality rescinds the ordinance prior to a court decision or goes to decision, the municipality will have to pay two to three times the sum of the actual damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs.
If you have questions about Pennsylvania’s preemption law or live in a municipality that is unlawfully enacting ordinances or regulations limiting your right to keep and bear arms, contact me today to discuss your issue.
Gun Clubs and Ranges Take Warning – Providing Alcohol for a Donation is the Sale of Alcohol!
August 12, 2011
Recently, the Pennsylvania State Police’s Liquor Control Unit has stepped up enforcement against local clubs and ranges that are providing liquor to club and range members, where the club does not have liquor license. Many clubs and ranges offer liquor to their members for a required “donation.” This constitutes the sale of liquor, which requires a liquor license.
More importantly, where the club is not incorporated, the PSP has been charging the individual board members. However, where the club is incorporated, our firm has been successful in convincing thePSP to charge the corporation or LLC, instead of the individual board members, and in convincing the PSP to recommend the Club/Range for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD), which permits the expungement of the criminal records upon successful completion ofARD.
If you or your club is providing liquor, without a license, you must immediately stop. All clubs and ranges, for liability reasons, should be incorporated. If you have questions regarding whether your club/range needs a liquor license or how to incorporate to protect your board members, contact us today.
