Category Archives: Pennsylvania Firearms Law

The Thin Blue Label…A Tale of Confidential Information and a Glock Representative Demanding a Pennsylvania FFL Violate the Crimes Code

Trop Gun made a big splash on social media and forums on Thursday for their refusal to show Glock employees their 4473s for customers who had purchased guns through the Blue Label Program. In response to Trop’s refusal to show the Glock representative the 4473s, Glock terminated Trop from the Blue Label Program. You can read Trop’s response to having their Blue Label Program participation revoked here. For those who are unfamiliar, the Blue Label Program allows law enforcement, military, Glock Shooting Sports Foundation (GSSF) members and several other select individuals to purchase Glock pistols at a reduced price.

43bluelabel

The Blue Label Program imposes certain requirements on dealers when selling “blue label” guns. Those requirements include collecting a copy of the individuals credentials (photocopy of their ID), filling out a form that certifies the sales representative saw the credential if a photocopy cannot be made or collecting the GSSF coupon that GSSF members bring. Glock requires that these be attached to the 4473.

According to Trop, when the Glock representative came to do an audit of the “blue label” firearms that were sold, the representative demanded access to view records relating to “blue label” sales including access to the 4473s. Trop Gun wisely refused the representative’s request. After attempting to find a solution that would allow the Glock representative to be satisfied that the “blue label” sales were only made to qualified individuals and arriving at nothing that would satisfy the demands of the Glock representative, Trop Gun was terminated from the Blue Label Program.

While Trop Gun refused the Glock representative access to the 4473s based on their position of protecting their customer’s privacy, there appears to be a more pertinent reason to deny the Glock representative access. It’s a violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code for a Pennsylvania FFL to disclose information provided by the transferee in relation to the purchase of a firearm.

18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(i) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code reads:

Confidentiality.–All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant’s name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this sectionshall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.

As Section 6111 pertains to the sale or transfer of firearms, the information provided by the transferee is confidential and not subject to public disclosure. This prohibition of disclosure would surely include the Glock representative who arrives at a Pennsylvania FFL to conduct an audit of “blue label” sales. Furthermore, any FFL who did provide the 4473s and/or Pennsylvania Record of Sale to a Glock representative would be in violation of Section 6111(i) and subject to civil penalties in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, as well as reasonable attorney fees!

glock-logo_1_1

Ostensibly, as the credentials Glock requires individuals to provide in order to purchase a “blue label” gun are being provided for the purchase of a firearm, there may be an argument that the disclosure of those credentials are in violation of Section 6111.

All FFLs in Pennsylvania who are Blue Label Program members should be aware of this issue. If a Glock representative requests information pertaining to an audit for “blue label” guns and the PA FFL provides them with any information furnished by the transferee, that FFL could be civilly liable under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Perhaps the next Pennsylvania FFL who is ordered to disclose their 4473s for a Glock “blue label” audit would be better suited in pointing out the request is asking them to violate the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Maybe after reviewing this matter more closely, Glock will reconsider their termination of Trop’s Blue Label Program participation, as they were asking Trop Gun to potentially open themselves up to civil liability.

Did you find this blog post informative? Be sure to share it with your friends! Click the buttons below to share on Facebook and Twitter. Be sure to like our Facebook pages by using the buttons to the right!

10 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

City of Lancaster’s RTKL Disclosures Regarding It’s Unlawful Defense Fund, Including the Mayor’s Chief of Staff “Need[s] Dope”

As most of our viewers are aware, on February 25, 2015, I submitted a Right to Know Law (RTKL) Request on the City of Lancaster in relation to the litigation of NRA v. City of Lancaster and the defense fund it instituted to pay for that litigation. Specifically, I requested the following:

This is a request for all records, including, but not limited to, financial records pursuant to Section 102, since January of 2015, relating to the National Rifle Association (NRA) v. City of Lancaster, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) All records, including, but not limited to, City of Lancaster’s Legal Defense Fund, information of which can be found at http://www.commonsenselancaster.com and http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/blog/message-mayor-gray-nra-lawsuit. As provided for by Section 102, this specifically includes, but is not limited to, the names, addresses, and amounts of any donations to/receipts by the City of Lancaster;

(2) All records, including, but not limited to, all financial accounts and financial institutions utilized by the City of Lancaster, in relation to request (1);

(3) all records, including, but not limited to, contracts, communications, and billings, from or to Dechert, LLP or any other law firm or attorney hired to review the legal issues relating to request (1); and

(4) Any other record in any way relating to the current litigation in NRA v. City of Lancaster.

On March 4, 2015, the City requested 30 days to respond, which it is permitted under the RTKL. On April 1, 2015, I received a response from the City stating that “Your request is granted” and that the records would be disclosed upon my payment of $104.50. It is notable that no exemptions were claimed in the response; rather, as reflected on the face of the March 4, 2015 letter, my request was granted.

Understanding that the City had granted my request in full (per the City’s April 1, 2015 letter stating such), I paid the $104.50 (418 pages at .25 cents per page). On April 6, 2015, I received the City’s disclosures, now denying in part my request and claiming exemptions not previously asserted. (Nice how that works; AFTER someone has paid pursuant to an understanding that the request was granted in full, they then deny in part the request…but, I digress. This will be an issue for the Office of Open Records (OOR) in my future appeal). The City categorized the disclosures into 12 sub-parts (A – L). The categories and links to download the applicable documents are as follows:

Production A. Legal Defense Fund Account Screen Print

Production B. Online Contributions to 3/27/2015

Production C. Cash and Check Contributions to 3/27/2015

Production D. City of Lancaster Cash Account Fulton Bank

Production E. January 2015 Solicitor’s Invoice

Production F. February 2015 Solicitor’s Invoice

Production G. Insurance Claim Documentation

Production H. City emails Regarding NRA Lawsuit

Production I. Emails with Travelers Regarding Coverage of Defense of Lawsuit

Production J. Emails regarding Media Communication NRA lawsuit, establishment of legal defense fund, and process to set up communications website, use of funds

Production K. Emails regarding Prince Right to Know Request

Production L. Emails from Mayor

In Production A., it reflects that the City has taken in over $18,000 in donations. Of course, contrary to their original grant of my request, they redacted the donor names and contact information. Again, this issue will be addressed in my future appeal to OOR.

In Production G., Travelers’ January 30, 2015 letter, (pdf pg 6) is enlightening. Specifically, on pdf pg 8, Travelers reviews its exemptions for “wrongful acts.” Travelers’ letter goes on to state:

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages in connection with a “wrongful act” committed by or on behalf of the City in the conduct of the City’s duties, the following exclusions may apply;…

Well that doesn’t sound good…So, let’s see what the Carrier goes on to disclaim on the next page:

Plaintiff requests a declaration that the Ordinance is pre-empted by state statute. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the City from enforcing the Ordinance. To the extent that any loss, cost or expense for complying with any injunctive or other non-monetary relief is assessed against the City, there would be no coverage for those damages. In addition, the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief do not qualify as damages under the Policy. Therefore, the injunctive, declaratory and non-monetary relief claims are disclaimed.

Uh oh…last I checked, Section 6120 applied to declaratory and injunctive relief, unless the party had actual damages. Maybe, I’m in error, as it has been at least 2 hours since I’ve thought about Section 6120. Nope, Section 6120 (a.2) provides that an aggrieved individual “may seek declaratory or injunctive relief and actual damages.” Since actual damages are not in play in NRA v. City of Lancaster, the City is liable for ALL costs and fees awarded by the court, contrary to Mayor Gray’s statement that the City only has a $25,000 deductible. I think the residents of Lancaster might be interested to learn that per Travelers’ disclaimer, they’re on the hook for ALL the fees and costs associated with this litigation.

Butl, Travelers isn’t done yet.

The Complaint seeks punitive damages if available. Directly assessed punitive damages are uninsurable in Pennsylvania and any award for such punitive damages would not be covered by the City’s policy with Travelers.

Wow…that’s too bad because those multi-million dollar verdicts tend to result from punitive damages. I guess the taxpayers will have to cough up that money, as well, all because the Mayor and City Council believe they are above the law.

But things only get worse in the disclosures.

In Production J., (pdf pg 42) Patricia Brogan, Mayor Gray’s Chief of Staff declares:

Actually, I NEED dope…

This stuff is too good to make up. I wonder if the good Mayor will oppose the drug laws and defend his Chief of Staff in her need for illicit drugs. Inquiring minds want to know Mayor Gray…

More interesting tidbits from the disclosures include the City’s relationship with Everytown for Gun Safety (formerly Mayors Against Illegal Guns – boy, they sure do change names frequently, especially when a lot of their members are convicted of deplorable crimes) (Production J. at pdf pg 65). Production J. also reflects the City’s desire, from the start, to utilize any donations for purposes beyond the litigation in NRA v. City of Lancaster. See, Production J. at pdf pg 143.

There are some more beneficial tidbits in the disclosures that I’ll save for later…like during the appeal or when the time is right. Someone in the City might want to take a second look at the IRS exemptions…especially, when the case law already establishes that a lost and stolen ordinance violates pre-amendment Section 6120.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

PA Gaming Control Board Rescinds Unlawful Regulation

As many of our viewers are aware, almost a year ago, on April 19, 2014, I submitted a written request to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to invalidate Section 465a.13, as it violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(m.3).  In June, I heard from Chief Counsel of the PA Gaming Control Board that the issue had been forwarded to Attorney General Kane. On August 5, 2014, Attorney General Kane issued a Legal Opinion letter stating:

“…the Board’s regulation at 58 Pa.Code § 465a.13(a) contravenes 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(m.3)…Section 6109(m.3), on the other hand, prohibits a Commonwealth agency from regulating the possession of a firearm in any manner inconsistent with Title 18. The Board is a Commonwealth agency….Accordingly, the Board’s regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of Title 18 inasmuch it regulates the possession of firearms in a location (licensed casino facility) not contemplated by Title 18.”

Yesterday, April 16, 2015, the Board convened and repealed the firearm regulations in Section 465a.13. You can find a copy of the final approved rule on the Independent Regulatory Review Commission’s website – here.

We are still waiting to hear from DCNR, L&I and State regarding the repeal of their unlawful regulations.

6 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Pennsylvania Second Amendment Action Day – May 12, 2015!

The 10th Annual Pennsylvania Second Amendment Action Day is scheduled for May 12, 2015 at the State Capitol Steps in Harrisburg, PA. With notable speakers such as Sheriff Richard Mack (who sued the U.S. Government and won in relation to a gun control measure) and State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, it is guaranteed to be phenomenal event in support of OUR rights.

Will you join me in attending and standing up for Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Contrary to media discourse, our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is being eviscerated at the state and federal level. This year alone, we have seen Pennsylvania Attorney General Kane rescind firearm reciprocity agreements in the absence of any authority to do so and fail in her duty to enter into a reciprocity agreement with Idaho. We have also seen NUMEROUS bills submitted in the General Assembly to strip away OUR rights! These include HB 285 which seeks to make any person who ever seeks mental health treatment, a prohibited person; HB 418, which seeks to ban human silhouette targets; and HB 91, which seeks to make any false compartment, potentially including your attached vehicle safe, a criminal offense! At the federal level, we have seen ATF seek to expand the “sporting purpose framework” in relation to 5.56/223 ammo, ATF direct Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) to abuse the NICS and PICS systems, and ATF seek to redefined what constitutes being “committed to a mental institution.”

You need to come out and let your voice be heard! Article 1, Section 21 and the Second Amendment are inalienable (or natural) rights, as even acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller.

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds.2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, § 21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837). D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 585, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2793, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
Yet, our rights are constantly under attack at the state and federal level. We need to let our representatives know that shall not infringe means just that…shall not infringe. If you don’t appreciate the language of the Second Amendment or Article 1, Section 21, then, like everyone else, you have the right to petition your representatives to have it amended; however, you do not have the right to seek judicially active judges to interpret that which is abundantly clear.
Join me and numerous other individuals and pro-2nd Amendment organizations on May 12th in celebrating our rights and making clear to our representatives that we will not tolerate ANY infringement on our rights!
Gun Rally Flyer 2015-Final

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Has ATF Directed FFLs to Abuse the NICS System?

It’s no secret that ATF told at least one FFL they need to run a NICS check on trustees picking up NFA firearms on behalf of a trust. In a letter addressed to Dakota Silencer, ATF explained:

The term “person” is defined by the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1), to include “any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.”

ATF has interpreted the GCA exception in sections 922(t)(3)(B) and 478.102(d)(2) to mean that firearms transfers are exempt from a NICS check when they have been approved under the NFA to the person receiving the firearm. Unlike individuals, corporations, partnerships, and associations; unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of “person” in the GCA.

Because unincorporated trusts are not “persons” under the GCA, a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) cannot transfer firearms to them without complying with the GCA. Thus, when an FFL transfers an NFA firearm to a trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust, the transfer is made to this person as an individual (i.e., not as a trust). As the trustee or other person acting on behalf of the trust is not the approved transferee under the NFA, 18 U.S.C. 5812, the trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust must undergo a NICS check. The individual must also be a resident of the same State as the FFL when receiving the firearm.

This interpretation is what spawned the blog post “Did ATF’s Determination on NICS Checks Open the Door for Manufacture of New Machineguns for Trusts”  by Chief Counsel Joshua Prince. And as we all know, the NFA Examiners issued a number of approved Form 1s before they had to recall them due to an “error”.

Since this letter was published, a number of FFLs either on their own accord or through advice of counsel have begun to perform background checks when transferring NFA Firearms to trustees. But is this actually required?

A person under the National Firearms Act is defined in 26 U.S.C.A. § 7701:

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

As defined in the National Firearms Act of 1934, the term firearm means:

 (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of Title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. 26 U.S.C.S § 5845(a)

maxim

As defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, the term firearm means:

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)

So what’s the big deal you ask? There are a few different issues that need to be addressed.

First, does the GCA of 1968 even APPLY to trusts? As Section 921(a)(1) does not define the term “person” to include an unincorporated trust, there is nothing in the GCA to indicate a trust falls under its purview! As Chief Counsel Joshua Prince pointed out to me in our discussions on this topic, ATF has said that a trust cannot hold an FFL because trusts, by definition, are not a person under the GCA and thus do not fall into the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 923. Yet, in the same breath, ATF is stating that trustees need to have a background check performed when they pick up a NFA item! How is it that ATF can refuse an FFL to a trust, because it is not a person under the GCA and refuse to pierce through the trust to an actual person, while requiring an FFL to, in essence, pierce through the trust to perform a background check for an NFA item?

It would seem that ATF is directing at least one FFL to perform a background check that I can find no legal requirement to perform. To my knowledge there has not been an industry wide newsletter or open letter directing that FFLs perform such a check. And even if there were, there is nothing I can find in the law to suggest that it is actually required.

ATF in a 2011 newsletter to FFLs, addressed the licensing of trusts under federal firearms law. ATF stated that only a person under the GCA could obtain a FFL. ATF went on to say that under Section 921:

“The term ‘person’ does not include trusts.”

In a 2008 newsletter to FFLs, ATF addressed the transfer of a National Firearms Act firearm to a corporation or other legal entity.

Procedure after approval
Approved NFA transfers are exempt from the NICS background check. So, when the FFL arranges for the disposition of the NFA firearm to a representative of the corporation or other entity, only the ATF
Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, must be completed by the representative of the corporation or other entity.

Furthermore, the NICS system isn’t even run by ATF. FBI is responsible for NICS and for what purposes it can be used. 28 C.F.R. § 25.6 provides:

(a) FFLs may initiate a NICS background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly prohibited from initiating a NICS background check for any other purpose.

The Brady Act amended § 922 along with a few other sections of Chapter 44.

Looking at 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1), it provides:

Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background check system is established, a … licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless—
(A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of that Act;

Section 922(t)(3) provides:

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a firearm transfer between a licensee and another person if–…

(B) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;…

If the Attorney General approved the transfer under Section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code then no NICS check is required. But the devil is in the details. We are talking about a transfer from a licensee to a person and a trust is not a person as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921. Since the licensed dealer isn’t transferring the firearm to a person, how could the GCA apply at all? Furthermore, why does it matter that the trustee or person acting on behalf of the trust is not the approved transferee under 26 U.S.C. § 5812? What makes them so special that they need a NICS check performed? A person who comes in to pick up a NFA firearm on behalf of a corporation or a LLC isn’t the approved transferee. Yet, ATF doesn’t seem to have any qualms about that individual picking up a NFA firearm without a NICS check under the 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(B) exemption.

Moreover, 28 C.F.R. § 25.6 prohibits FFLS from utilizing the NICS system for any other purpose than required by the Brady Act. Ostensibly, FFLs cannot comply with what ATF purportedly wants them to do; access NICS to perform a background check on a Trustee picking up a NFA firearm.

Utilizing the NICS system for purposes other than allowed by Subpart A of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as defined by 28 C.F.R. §§ 25.1-25.11 shall result in a fine not to exceed $10,000 and the possible cancellation of NICS inquiry privileges. Which can more or less be read as the loss of ability to conduct business as a FFL, if it is canceled.

Even if the NICS query would not be illegal to perform, there is another issue under Pennsylvania law!

Pennsylvania defines firearm very differently. In 18 Pa.C.S. § 6102 a firearm is defined as:

Any pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable.

As you are probably aware, the Pennsylvania State Police act as a point of contact for the NICS system. However, Pennsylvania law only allows for limited uses of the PICS system. These uses are defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.

psp

Section 6111(b) requires that:

No … licensed dealer shall sell or deliver any firearm to another person … until the conditions of subsection (a) have been satisfied and until he has:

(1) For purposes of a firearm as defined insection 6102 (relating to definitions), obtained a completed application/record of sale from the potential buyer or transferee…

(2) Inspected photoidentification of the potential purchaser or transferee…

(3) Requested by means of a telephone call that the Pennsylvania State Police conduct a criminal history, juvenile delinquency history and a mental health record check.

(4) Received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the Pennsylvania State Police and recorded the date and the number on the application/record of sale form.

(5) Issued a receipt containing the information from paragraph (4), including the unique approval number of the purchaser….

Section 6111(f)(1) provides:

For the purposes of this section only … “firearm” shall mean any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

Even with the expanded definition of firearm for the purposes of this section, a silencer does not fit into the criteria spelled out by the General Assembly!

So what does all of this mean?

Section 6111(g)(3) states:

Any … licensed dealer … who knowingly and intentionally requests a criminal history, juvenile delinquency or mental health record check or other confidential information from the Pennsylvania State Police under this chapter for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter … commits a felony of the third degree.

Even if FFLs could contact NICS to perform a background check on a trustee when delivering a NFA Firearm without abusing the system, a Pennsylvania FFL will be committing a felony of the third degree under state law!

nics

FFLs who are conducting background checks on trustees due to their interpretation of the Dakota Silencer letter or legal advice they received may wish to inquire with their counsel as to whether or not they actually need to perform one. There does not appear to be any basis in the law for such a requirement. Section 921 does not include an unincorporated trust in the definition of a “person” and the Attorney General would have approved the transfer under 26 U.S.C.A. § 5812 to the trust!

Did you find this blog article informative? Be sure to share it with your friends by clicking the buttons below. If you haven’t already, make sure to like both Prince Law Offices and Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook using the buttons to the right!

6 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

PRESS RELEASE: Lawsuit Filed Against Lower Merion Township Regarding Its Illegal Firearm Ordinance

Today, Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., filed an 24 page Complaint, plus exhibits, against Lower Merion Township on behalf of Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and two individual plaintiffs regarding the Township’s illegal and unconstitutional firearm ordinance – Section 109-16. In the Complaint, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince argues that the Township’s ordinance violates 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120 and Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, for which even Township Manager McNelly admitted and which is included as an exhibit.

Although the Township was provided an opportunity to repeal its illegal ordinance, in direct defiance of the state crime of Official Oppression, as well as, Section 6120, the Commissioners, contrary to the advice of their solicitor, refused to repeal or amend Section 109-16.

It is unfortunate that Township’s taxpayers will be burdened by the Township’s elected officials believing it is acceptable, and even gloating, that they are violating the Crimes Code and refusing to repeal such illegal provisions.

As it is a misdemeanor of the first degree to violate Section 6120, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6119, we call upon Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Ferman, who is currently running for judge in Montgomery County, to bring charges against the Township and its representatives for their violations of the Crimes Code, including conspiracy, official oppression, and Section 6120. It is time that our elected officials be held accountable for their actions.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Celebrating the ATF’s Decision Regarding SS109/M855 Ammunition? NOT SO FAST…

While many organizations are celebrating the putative victory in relation to the ATF’s announcement of earlier today that it would “not at this time seek to issue a final framework”, Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., would caution our viewers and the Firearms Industry that ATF can likely, at any time, seek to move forward with a final framework without any further notice or comment.

Today, ATF posted on its website:

Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework

Thank you for your interest in ATF’s proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable.

Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.

As ATF’s original Notice of Proposed Framework likely constituted a procedural rule, it was not likely subject to the notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedural Act, except for the ammunition specifically addressed. This may be why ATF erred on the side of caution in permitting comments but did not notice such comment period in the Federal Register. Regardless, ATF opened the door by permitting comments through March 16, 2015, and it is imperative that all individuals and entities that desire to comment on its proposed framework submit comments in opposition before the close of the comment period on Monday, March 16th. Contrary to ATF’s statement, as has been consistently reflected under the current Administration, an open and transparent process is anything but what has been provided, as will be further explained in FICG’s Comment in opposition. Further, although ATF states that it will further study the issues raised, assuming any framework constitutes a procedural rule, with the exception of the ammunition specifically addressed, ATF could move forward without any further notice or comment period.

It is for these reason that FICG believes it is imperative that all interested parties continue to submit their comments in opposition to the proposed framework through Monday, March 16th. In the next coming days, FICG will submit and post its extensive Comment regarding the proposed framework to ensure that all relevant and pertinent issues are raised and preserved, in protection of the Firearms Industry and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

6 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law