Pennsylvania Supreme Court AFFIRMS Decision Imposing Financial Judgment Against the Pennsylvania State Police for Violating Second Amendment Rights!

Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order in Haron v. PSP, 65 MAP 2017, affirming the Commonwealth Court’s decision entering a judgment of approximately $6,500 against the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) for erroneously denying an individual his right to keep and bear arms, in an issue of first impression that was litigated by Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut. We previously blogged about the Commonwealth Court’s decision, when we were successful in securing that initial decision. Thereafter, the PSP appealed to the PA Supreme Court.

Today, seemingly finding that the PSP’s appeal was frivolous and didn’t even warrant time being spent to write a decision, the PA Supreme Court issued the Per Curiam Order simply stating “AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2018, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.” As such, we will be filing a motion with the Court for additional attorney fees and costs incurred by Mr. Haron during the PSP’s appeal to the PA Supreme Court. Hopefully, this decision will cause the PSP to reconsider its tactic of denying individuals and forcing them to incur attorney fees and costs in matters, where the individual is not prohibited under the law.

If your rights have been denied during the purchase/transfer of a firearm or have been otherwise violated by the PSP, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

FICG/Prince Law Offices, P.C.’s Bi-Annual Machinegun Shoot – October 20, 2018!

Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG)®, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., will be hosting our twelfth bi-annual machine gun shoot at Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun Club on October 20, 2018, in celebration of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, and Article 1, Section 21 of the PA Constitution. Eastern Lancaster Rod and Gun Club is located at 966 Smyrna Road, Kinzers, PA 17535. It will start at 11am and go until 4pm. From 11am until 2:30pm, it will be unsuppressed and suppressed fire. From 2:30pm until 4pm, only suppressed fire will be allowed. Come on out and meet FICG Chief Counsel and your PA Firearms Lawyer, Joshua Prince, as well as, as other FICG attorneys!

Everyone, over 18 years of age, is welcome to attend. We are sorry but the insurer will not allow anyone under 18 to participate. There will be a small area for observers, under the age of 18, to watch the shoot. The only requirement is that you bring a driver’s license and hearing and eye protection. All attendees will be required to sign a waiver.

There will be several dealers and manufacturers in attendance and which will have some unique firearms for rent that you might not otherwise have an opportunity to shoot. We are still waiting for confirmation of the dealers that will be in attendance and will update this blog, as they confirm. While you are welcome to bring your own firearms and ammunition, it will be up to the owner of the firearm as to whether he/she will permit you to use your ammunition in his/her firearm. The FFLs will be bringing ammunition for purchase, if you need additional or if they require certain types of ammunition to be used in their weapon systems.

Update 1: Tri-State Tactical will be in attendance with an Mp5, Mp5k, Mp5sd
Ak, M16, Ar15 7” Hera cqr auto, Uzi, Pps-50 .22, Pps-43c, Ar9, FAL, M1a carbine and
Hk Ump.

Also, Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun will be making food and have drinks available, at extremely reasonable prices. There will be breakfast available again this time starting around 9am! Most attendees at the last shoot couldn’t get over how the Club could make any money on the food sold!

All attendees MUST RSVP. To RSVP via facebook, please go here. If you do not have Facebook, please contact our Tammy Taylor, at ttaylor@princelaw.com.

We are requiring that each person donate at least $10 to the Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun Club for their generous permission to use their range. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, News & Events

Firearms Law Seminar – August 4, 2018 at King Shooters Supply!

On August 4, 2018, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince, Attorney Adam Kraut and Attorney Eric Winter of Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., in conjunction with King Shooters Supply, will offer a four (4) hour seminar, from 10am-2pm, on state and federal firearms law at their store located at  346 E Church Rd, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.

The cost is $10 and you must register early, as last time it sold out fast. You can find out further information on King Shooters Supply’s website.  To register, sign up on the website here. If there are no more spots available, the class will show out of stock. If you have questions, please feel free to contact King Shooters Supply at 610-491-9901.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

More Pennsylvania Cities Decriminalize Marijuana Despite State Law.

With the noted exception of the current Attorney General, there is a growing acceptance of legalize use of marijuana in the United States. Thirty of the fifty states have legalized marijuana for either medical and/or recreational use. As the laws with regards to marijuana use continue to change state by state, the states which have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana must navigate the conflict between their state law and Federal law which continues to classify marijuana as a prohibited Schedule 1 narcotic – a “harmful substance of no known medical benefit.”

The classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug is antiquated and patently false. However, perception and laws are hard to change. Change usually begins at a grass roots level. Within Pennsylvania, several cities have started to pass local ordinances that have decriminalized marijuana. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Allentown, York, and, most recently, Bethlehem have all passed local ordinances essentially reducing the punishment for possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use, typically 30 grams or less, from a crime to a summary offense subject to a fine.

These local ordinances create a perceived conflict with Pennsylvania State laws. Under Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug Device and Cosmetic Act (“CSA”), 35 P.S. §780-113 (a)(16), no person may knowingly possess a controlled substance without a lawful prescription from a doctor. Under the CSA, marijuana is also classified a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Pennsylvania’s penalty for possession of 30 grams or less of flower or 8 grams or less of hashish is a misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail and/or a $500 fine. See 35 P.S. §780-113 (a)(31)(i). Possession of more than 30 grams of flower or more than 8 grams of hashish is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 6-12 months incarceration and a $5,000 fine.

So which law applies and how severe can you be punished for possession of a small amount marijuana in theses cities that have decriminalized marijuana. Typically, when there is a conflict between state law and local ordinances, state law preempts the local ordinance. Some local law enforcement authority have argued the CSA preempts all of the local ordinances as they are attempts to alter the penalties under the CSA.

In Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 608 Pa. 146 (2011), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Controlled Substance Act prohibits local regulation in order to create uniformity in the regulation of controlled substances. In Holt’s Cigar, the Supreme Court held that the Act does not prohibit local regulations of controlled substances unless there is an “irreconcilable conflict” between the CSA and the local regulation. The proper standard for determining whether the local ordinances “irreconcilably conflicts” with the Controlled Substances Act was stated by the Supreme Court in Holt’s Cigar.

[I]t has long been the established general rule, in determining whether a conflict exists between a general and local law, that where the legislature has assumed to regulate a given course of conduct by prohibitory enactments, a municipal corporation with subordinate power to act in the matter may make such additional regulations in aid and furtherance of the purpose of the general law as may seem appropriate to the necessities of the particular locality and which are not in themselves unreasonable.

Holt’s Cigar, 608 Pa. at 154. (emphasis added).

The Holt’s Cigar decision makes it clear that local laws with a different penalty do not create an irreconcilable conflict, as long as the local law does not permit what the Act forbids or forbid what the Act permits. The Supreme Court stated that the the nature or severity of the penalties imposed is not determinative and does not eliminate the conflict arising from the discrepancy with respect to mens rea for a particular course of proscribed conduct.” Id.at 165 (emphasis added).

While Holt’s Cigar decision provides some clarity as to whether local municipalities may enact ordinances decriminalizing marijuana, person may still be punished under state laws. Usually, it will depend on the law enforcement authority that arrests and prosecutes the individual. If you are arrested by a state trooper as opposed to the local municipal police, there is a good chance you will be charged with a violation of state law. It will then be up to the local courts and prosecutors on how to proceed with charges and punishment

An interesting enforcement scenario exists in the city of Bethlehem. On June 26, 2018, the Mayor of Bethlehem signed into law Bill No. 16-2018, creating a summary offense for possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana (or eight grams of hashish), possession of marijuana paraphernalia and personal use of marijuana. Under the new law, there is a fine of $25 for a first offense, $50 for a second offense, $100 for a third offense, and $150 fourth offenses or eight hours of community service.

The problem arises with enforcement. The City of Bethlehem is divided between two counties, Lehigh and Northampton. The District Attorney of Lehigh County maintains the position that the CSA preempts local ordinance despite the fact that both Allentown and now Bethlehem – Lehigh County’s largest cities – have decriminalized possession of under 30 grams of marijuana. The District Attorney of Northampton County maintains the opposite position and will enforce the local ordinances. So it is possible you could be punished differently depending on where you are caught in Bethlehem with marijuana.

Leave a comment

Filed under Criminal Law, Marijuana Law, Uncategorized

The Supreme Court recognizes privacy right to cell phone location history.

On May 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision extending the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure into the digital age. In Thomas Ivory Carpenter v. United States, the Court sided with the privacy rights of cellphone users over law enforcement using private tracking data compiled and saved by cell phone companies. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment required law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing cell phone location history from cell phone service providers.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance and prominence of cell phones in an individual’s daily life and the right to privacy of the sensitive information generated by the cell phone’s use.

The Court stated that there are 396 million cell phone service accounts in the United States for a Nation of 326 million people. Cell phones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by connecting to a set of radio antennas called “cell sites” mounted on towers, light posts, flagpoles, church steeples, or the sides of buildings. Cell sites typically have several directional antennas that divide the covered area into sectors. Cell phones continuously scan their environment looking for the best signal, which generally comes from the closest cell site. Cell phones, smartphones, tablets, and other devices tap into the wireless network several times a minute whenever their signal is on. Each time the smart device connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store CSLI for their own business purposes, including finding weak spots in their network and applying “roaming” charges when another carrier routes data through their cell sites. In addition, wireless carriers often sell aggregated location records to data brokers, without individual identifying information. Carriers retained CSLI for the start and end of incoming calls,text messages and routine data connections. Accordingly, modern cell phones generate increasingly vast amounts of increasingly precise CSLI.

In December of 2010, there were a series of robberies in Michigan and Ohio of cell phones, ironically. Several cell phones stores were robbed of their cell phones at gunpoint. Eventually, the FBI arrested four men suspected of the robberies. One of the men confessed and provided names and cell phone numbers of accomplices including the petitioner, Timothy Carpenter.

Prosecutors applied for court orders under the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) to obtain cell phone records for Carpenter and several other suspects. The SCA permits the Government to compel the disclosure of certain telecommunications records when it “offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” The SCA stops short of requiring that prosecutors demonstrate probable cause, which is necessary to obtain a warrant.

Federal Magistrate Judges issued two orders directing Carpenter’s wireless carriers to disclose the CSLI for Carpenter’s telephone at call origination and at call termination for incoming and outgoing calls during the four-month period when the string of robberies occurred.

Law enforcement was able to track Carpenter’s locations and connect Carpenter to the crimes by obtaining more than 100 days’ worth of his smartphone location data records without a warrant. The location data records placed his phone in over 12,000 locations including when he was at church and whether or not he spent the night at home.

Before his trial, Carpenter argued that obtaining the records constituted a Fourth Amendment search, and therefore the police should have needed a warrant. His motion was denied, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the case.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with Chief Justice Roberts providing the deciding vote and writing the majority opinion.

The Court held that the acquisition of Carpenter’s CSLI records was a Fourth Amendment search. The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests but certain expectations of privacy as well. Thus, when an individual “seeks to preserve some thing as private,” and his expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,” official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause.

The Court further held that the digital data at issue, personal location information maintained by a third party, does not fit neatly under existing precedents but lies at the intersection of two lines of cases. One set of cases addressing a person’s expectation of privacy in his physical location and movements. The other set of cases addresses a person’s expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties.

The third-party doctrine, as first set forth in United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (no expectation of privacy in financial records held by a bank), and Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in records of dialed telephone numbers conveyed to telephone company) holds that information customers voluntarily provide to a third party is outside the bounds of Fourth Amendment protections and, therefore, law enforcement does not need a warrant in order to access that information.

The Supreme Court stated that the third-party doctrine partly does not apply given “the nature of the particular documents sought” and “legitimate ‘expectation of privacy’ concerning their contents.” The Supreme Court cited prior case law where the court had already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Additionally, the Supreme Court recognized in many way CSLI is not voluntarily provided by the cell phone users but automatically obtained when the cell phone is used in some form.

The Supreme Court found the Government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring Carpenter’s cell-site records. It acquired those records pursuant to a court order under the SCA, which required the Government to show “reasonable grounds” for believing that the records were “relevant and material to an ongoing investigation” which falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant.

1 Comment

Filed under Constitutional Law, Uncategorized

Massive Comment Filed in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Bump-Stock-Devices – ATF – 2017R-22

Firearms Industry Consulting Group (“FICG”), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., is honored to announce that Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut drafted and filed a 923 page Comment in Opposition to ATF’s proposed rulemaking on bump-stock-devices (docket no. ATF 2017R-22 ) on behalf of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and Firearms Policy Foundation (“FPF”). A copy of FPC/FPF’s Press Release can be found here and copies of the massive Comment in Opposition and 35 Exhibits can be found here.

Humorously, it appears that FICG broke the eRulemaking Portal, as ATF was unable to upload all exhibits (i.e. videos) and had to break the exhibits up over two separate comment IDs:

FPC Comment

It bears substantial mentioning that Patton Media and Consulting and former Acting Director of the Firearms Technology Branch and Senior Analyst Richard (“Rick”) Vasquez of Rick Vasquez Firearms LLC were instrumental in providing irrefutable evidence that ATF has purposely misled the public on the function of bump-stock-devices. While this would undermine the efforts of an administrative agency with a sterling reputation for candor, as reflected in the Comment, ATF has a well-documented record of “spinning” facts and engaging in outright deception of the courts, Congress, and the public. Thus, it is imperative that the current Administration appoint a director to ATF, who has a stellar reputation for candor, honesty and upholding the law as written, so that ATF’s extremely tarnished reputation might be rehabilitated.

If you or your company wish to file a comment in support or opposition to a notice of proposed rulemaking by a federal administrative agency, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss your rights and legal options.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

 

6 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

PA House Judiciary Committee Set to Vote on (and in Favor of) ANTI-Gun Bills this Week!

As I discussed in Pennsylvania Firearm Rights in the Crosshairs – The Rights That Stand to be Infringed, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee has been considering a number of extremely anti-Second Amendment bills, including a bill providing for extreme risk protection orders. Although Attorney Adam Kraut and I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the unconstitutionality of these bills, as well as, the other tangential concerns, the House Judiciary Committee is poised this week – on Tuesday, June 19th at 9 AM in the Majority Caucus Room – to vote on these unconstitutional bills that seek to deprive individuals of their rights – rights made inviolate by the Pennsylvania Constitution, pursuant to Article 1, Section 25. More disconcerting, it appears that a number of the members of the Committee plan to vote in favor of these draconian and unconstitutional bills, while refusing to bring up pro-Second Amendment bills that are pending in the Committee, such as SB 5, which has been pending since April 26, 2017! Let me be explicitly clear, these bills are likely to pass, absent your immediate action.

The bills to be considered are: “HB 273 (Donatucci), HB 1400 (Santora), HB 1872 (Dean/D Costa), HB 2060 (M Quinn), HB 2227 (Stephens), HB 2266 (Cruz), HB 2267 (Cruz), HB 2275 (Grove/Briggs), and HB 2463 (Nelson), as well as any other business that may come before the committee.” While HB 2463 is a pro-Second Amendment bill that would remove any prohibition relating to involuntary commitments under Section 302 of the Mental Health and Procedures Act and provide a relief mechanism for those who become prohibited under state or federal law as a result of an involuntary commitment, there are anti-Second Amendment amendments being proposed to it.

A quick synopsis provided by the Committee (i.e. biased in favor of enacting these proposals) of each bill and proposed amendments reveals:

HB 273 (Donatucci) creates a voluntary self-exclusion program by which an individual can agree to be prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm for a period of one year, three years, or lifetime.  There is one amendment, A07354, which removes the lifetime self-exclusion option, makes removal from the list automatic upon expiration of the self-exclusion period, and removes a requirement that the PA State Police provide for safekeeping of surrendered firearms.

HB 1400 (Santora) makes two changes relating to background checks for the sale or transfer of firearms.  First, the bill requires so-called “universal background checks” by requiring that private sales of long guns be subject to the same background check requirements that currently apply to sales conducted by a licensed dealer of firearms or a private sale of handguns.  Second, the bill permits a person who possesses a valid license to carry a firearm to utilize a single successful background check to transact multiple firearm sales at the same gun show.  There are no amendments.

HB 1872 (Dean/D Costa) adds bump stocks and similar devices to the list of offensive weapons prohibited under state law.  The bill also provides that the offense will not apply to possession of such a device which was obtained prior to the bill’s effective date and it requires the Attorney General to publish notice in the PA Bulletin describing in detail the change in the law within 10 days of enactment of the bill.  There are no amendments.

HB 2060 (M Quinn) amends the Uniform Firearms Act and the Protection From Abuse Act to amend the process and requirements for relinquishment of firearms following a PFA order or conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.  This is the House companion bill to the much-discussed “Senate Bill 501.”  There will be one amendment, which incorporates the wording of SB 501 while correcting drafting errors in that bill and harmonizing certain features of SB 501 with the “extreme risk protection order” process discussed in connection with HB 2227 below.

HB 2227 (Stephens) provides for a new judicial process to temporarily suspend a person’s right to possess or purchase a firearm.  An extreme risk protection order (ERPO) will be a court order prohibiting a person from possessing or obtaining a firearm based upon a finding that the person presents a risk of suicide or of causing death or serious bodily injury to another person.  The process is very similar to the current PFA process, but allows both law enforcement and household members to seek such orders.  An order can last between three months and one year in duration and will automatically expire unless renewed by the court, which renewal requires notice and another hearing.  There will be one amendment, which adds or clarifies numerous procedural protections to the respondent in such a proceeding.  We remain in discussions with interested stakeholders to achieve a consensus.

HB 2266 (Cruz) and HB 2267 (Cruz) together shorten the period in which courts and mental health agencies must send mental health data to the PA State Police from 7 days to 72 hours of adjudicating an individual to be incompetent or involuntarily committing an individual to a mental institution for inpatient treatment.  There are no amendments.

HB 2275 (Grove/Briggs) amends the Crimes Code to rectify a 2011 ruling by the PA Supreme Court which held that the prior conviction offenses that prohibit a person from possessing, transferring, or using a firearm do not include an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit those same crimes.  There is one amendment, A07610, which is technical.

HB 2463 (Nelson) makes three changes related to the firearm rights of those subjected to involuntary mental health treatment.  First, the bill removes the prohibition against firearm possession for those subjected to emergency involuntary mental health treatment.  Second, the bill provides a procedure for any person ineligible to possess a firearm due to a mental health issue to have his right to obtain a firearm reinstated.  Third, the bill requires the PA State Police to send any record relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing a firearm due to an adjudication of incompetency or an involuntary commitment within 72 hours to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).  There are two amendments.  The first, A07403, clarifies that persons presently prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a previous involuntary mental health commitment will have to seek a restoration of firearm rights through the new petition process.  The second, A07614, provides that an emergency involuntary mental health commitment will result in a six-month firearm prohibitor that automatically expires at the end of that period.

As such, it is imperative that you contact each member of the House Judiciary Committee and tell them to vote AGAINST HB 273, HB 1400, HB 1872, HB 2060, HB 2227, HB 2266 , HB 2267, HB 2275, and FOR HB 2463, but AGAINST the proposed amendments (A07403 and A07614). If you are a constituent of one of these members, please make sure to let your Representative know that their vote in favor of any of these bills, except for HB 2463, will result in you voting for someone else in November.

As emails can be easily deleted without the recipient reviewing them, I am imploring you to FAX your respectful correspondences to your Representative and House Judiciary Members, and then follow up via phone call to ensure that they all received your correspondence. If you wish to additionally send a copy via email, their respective email addresses are listed below.

The House Judiciary Members are:

  1. Chairman Ron Marsico – (717) 783-2014, Fax: (717) 705-2010 RMarsico@pahousegop.com;
  2. Democratic Chair Joseph Petrarca – (717) 787-5142, Fax: (717) 705-2014 JPetrarc@pahouse.net;
  3. Tarah Toohil – (570) 453-1344, Fax: (570) 459-3946 TToohil@pahousegop.com;
  4. Stephen Bloom – (717) 772-2280, Fax: (717) 705-2012 SBloom@pahousegop.com;
  5. Becky Corbin – (717) 783-2520, Fax: (717) 782-2927 BCorbin@pahousegop.com;
  6. Sheryl Delozier – (717) 783-5282, Fax: (717) 772-9994 SDelozie@pahousegop.com;
  7. Harold English – (717) 260-6407, Fax: (717) 783-5740 HEnglish@pahousegop.com;
  8. Garth Everett – (717) 787-5270, Fax: (717) 772-9958 GEverett@pahousegop.com;
  9. Barry Jozwiak – (717) 772-9940, Fax: (717) 782-2925 BJozwiak@pahousegop.com;
  10. Kate Klunk – (717) 787-4790, Fax: (717) 782-2952 KKlunk@pahousegop.com;
  11. Jerry Knowles – (717) 787-9029, Fax: (717) 782-2908 JKnowles@pahousegop.com;
  12. Tedd Nesbit – (717) 783-6438, Fax: (717) 782-2943 TNesbit@pahousegop.com;
  13. Rick Saccone – (717) 260-6122, Fax: (717) 787-9174 RSaccone@pahousegop.com;
  14. Paul Schemel – (717) 263-1053, Fax: (717) 263-1059 PSchemel@pahousegop.com;
  15. Todd Stephens – (717) 260-6163, Fax: (717) 782-2898 TStephen@pahousegop.com;
  16. Jesse Topper – (717) 787-7076, Fax: (717) 782-2933 JTopper@pahousegop.com;
  17. Martina White – (717) 787-6740, Fax: (717) 782-2929 MWhite@pahousegop.com;
  18. Bryan Barbin – (814) 487-4041, Fax: (814) 487-4043 BBarbin@pahouse.net;
  19. Ryan Bizzarro – (717) 772-2297, Fax: (717) 780-4767 RBizzarro@pahouse.net;
  20. Tim Briggs – (717) 705-7011, Fax: (717) 772-9860  TBriggs@pahouse.net;
  21. Dom Costa – (717) 783-9114, Fax: (717) 780-4761 DCosta@pahouse.net;
  22. Tina Davis – (717) 783-4903, Fax: (717) 783-0682 TDavis@pahouse.net;
  23. Jason Dawkins – (717) 787-1354, Fax: (717) 780-4789 JDawkins@pahouse.net;
  24. Madeleine Dean – (717) 783-7619, Fax: (717) 780-4754 MDean@pahouse.net;
  25. Joanna McClinton – (717) 772-9850, Fax: (717) 783-1516 JMcClinton@pahouse.net;
  26. Dan Miller – (717) 783-1850, Fax: (717) 780-4756 DMiller@pahouse.net;
  27. Gerald Mullery – 570) 636-3500, Fax: (570) 636-3502 GMullery@pahouse.net.

 

If you or someone you know has had their right to Keep and Bear Arms infringed, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law