The Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., is pleased to announce that it was retained by David M. Goldman of GunTrustLawyer.com and the Apple Law Firm PLLC to prepare a detailed filing in opposition to ATF’s proposed rule 41P. Mr. Goldman is the founder and owner of Gun Trust Lawyer® and he is recognized as one of the leading lawyers nationally with respect to issues relating to gun trusts and is often quoted by the media in stories addressing such issues.
Because there is a substantial delay in the posting of newly filed comments due to the government shutdown, Mr. Goldman decided to post the filing on his own Website to serve as a model for what other interested persons with different interests (such as small business FFL dealers and custom manufacturers, large silencer manufacturers, law enforcement organizations, and groups concerned with hearing loss) might care to develop and file.
You can find Mr. Goldman’s posting here.
Firearms Industry Consulting Group has been leading the fight against this rulemaking since August and we are prepared to assist other interested persons in making their views known to ATF.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Published by Joshua Prince, Esq.
With our 2nd Amendment rights being attacked at both the Federal and State level, and the ATF (Burea of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) trying to close down FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) for minor infractions while making FFLs the scapegoat when the ATF's records are inaccurate, I want to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am one of only a handful of attorneys across the US that practices in the niche area of law known as firearms law. I decided to concentrate my legal practice on firearms law not only because I am a shooter and firearms enthusiast, but also to ensure that our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms is never encroached upon.
I handle cases at the Federal and State level for both FFLs and individuals. At the federal and state levels for individuals, I actively defend the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 21 of the PA Constitution, as well as, help individuals with:
- License to Carry Firearms Denials;
- Challenges to Erroneous PICS Denials;
- Relief from Firearms Disabilities;
- Estate Planning Advice;
- Gun/NFA Trusts; and
- 42 USC 1983 Actions for Deprivation of Civil Rights
At both the state and federal levels, I represent FFLs and SOTs throughout Pennsylvania and the US regarding:
- ATF Compliance Inspections;
- Warning Letters and Hearings;
- FFL Revocations;
- Corporate Structure Advice
- Indoor/Outdoor Range Implementation; and
- Forfeiture Proceedings
In following my love for firearms and firearms law, I have taught several Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminars on Firearms in Estates and Trusts and Firearms Law 101 for several Bar Associations, including Berks, Cumberland, and Dauphin Counties. I also planned and taught several Firearms in Estates CLE classes for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI).
While at Widener Law School, I was a member of the Widener Law Journal. I wrote an article on the Inaccuracy of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). I also had an article published on Fee Disputes in Workers Compensation cases in the Widener Law Journal, Volume 18, No. 2.
You can often find me posting on several internet forums, including Subguns, Uzitalk, AR15, and PAFOA. I also hold PA Firearms Law classes for local ranges to inform the public on the firearm laws of the Commonwealth.
Following in my father's footsteps, I am also a Board member for the Pottstown Police Athletic League (PAL).
View all posts by Joshua Prince, Esq.
Prince Law Offices Blog 
Today, Thursday, October 17, ATF returned to normal staffing levels and for the first time in weeks we can see the first new additions to the “posted” comments. Seventy-two comments were made available on http://www.regulations.gov, bringing the total to 1074. Many more comments have been “received” by ATF and await review before they will be released. How far behind is ATF in giving you an up-to-date view of the concerns raised by the public comments? I know of two comments filed in September that still have not been posted.
LikeLike
I submitted a comment on Sept 30 via the regulations.gov site and sent a paper copy to Brenda Friend via First Class mail a few days later. As of yesterday I was unable to locate either on regulations.gov.
LikeLike
NFATCA has posted what they claim is the original petition that started this idiocy.
Click to access NFATCA_petition1209.pdf
LikeLike
here is the comment I Posted
The Second Amendment is an individual right See District of Columbia v Heller 2008. These regulations add further burden to purchasers of legal firearms and the exercise of a FUNDAMENT ENUMERATED RIGHT. The whole NFA scheme is a TAX upon the EXERCISE of a FUNDAMENT ENUMERATED RIGHT. Requiring fingerprinting etc for which any person must submit to, requires a cost, that “cost” really is a tax upon exercise of a fundament right and therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This whole scheme this is as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as a POLL TAX which SCOTUS had determined was UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the same reasons.
Further the burden of the requirement of a sign off of a CLEO will give similarly situated persons (trusts) different outcomes solely based upon the disposition of the CLEO to sign off on any transfer. This is because there is no requirement for a CLEO to approve any NFA paperwork unless they have cause specifically described in any state’s code, or county ordinance. I know of no such state laws, or county ordinances anywhere that would require a CLEO to approve any transfer for a person who is legally qualified to purchase, and possess a pistol. Because of this the CLEO approval is discretionary. No fundamental right or exercise thereof can be left to the discretion of another! This proposed regulation is on its face UNCONSTITUTIONAL and should not be approved. I would think that some sworn personnel who took an oath to defend the United States Constitution would be able to understand that advancing this proposed regulation is a violation of their oath of office and may constitute treason.
LikeLike