Category Archives: Firearms Law

EXTREMELY CRITICAL ALERT: Gun Control Tidal Wave About to Wreak Havoc on Pennsylvania Gun Owners

Guest Author Kim Stolfer of Firearm Owners Against Crime

The gun control insanity that has gripped much of our nation has finally raised its’ ugly head here in PA. Next week (9/24-9/25) the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, spurred on by Speaker of the House Rep. Turzai, is slated to consider two bills that were tabled in June – HB 2060 & HB 2227.

These are both an affront to our Constitution at the state and federal level. What’s worse is that Republican Leadership KNOWS this just as they know both expand the power of government at the expense of the Due Process rights of the accused with HB 2227 creating an entirely ‘new’ section of law involving suspension of ‘Due Process’.

Over the summer, FOAC has worked diligently to examine both bills with some great attorneys and have attempted to convey this to other groups, gun owners and PA House members. On Thursday (the 20th of Sept.) we were told that a September Surprise (meaning gun owners were being stabbed in the back) was coming and that both HB 2060 & HB 2227 would see floor action on Sept. 24th & 25th respectively.

We have done EVERYTHING we can to stop this freight train but are told that UNLESS YOU (gun owners) speak out and DEMAND leadership pull these bills they WILL PASS. We as a group (gun owners) have been silent TOO DAMN LONG!! NOW we are faced with House Leadership and SE Republicans and a ‘Host’ of anti-gun Democrats who think they can ignore citizens’ rights along with the reality of all the major gun groups rallying around these two gun bills that will severely damage the short and long term rights of all citizens to be treated fairly in the halls of justice.

Below are just a FEW examples of the Flaws and Traps in these bills:
1. IF a PFA is issued on you and you don’t turn in ALL your firearms, other weapons ‘and’ ammunition within 24 hours you will go directly to jail for 6 months (HB 2060)
2. Completely ELIMINATES your ability to go to court and use the 3rd Party process to ‘legally’ surrender your firearms to a ‘friend or family’ member to keep them for you until the PFA is terminated (HB 2060)
3. Forces you to pay a storage fee on EACH gun kept at a gun dealer or ‘commercial armory’ for up to FIVE years (HB 2060)
4. Buy a gun, get reported and have your gun seized without ‘due process’ THEN to challenge this you MUST spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to go to court and ‘prove’ your innocence (HB 2227)
5. Lose your rights by being reported by even decades old acquaintances and your property seized ‘without due process’ and forced to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to go to court and ‘prove’ your innocence (HB 2227)

See also Attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut’s Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on these issues, as well!

The Talking Points on this legislation can be found below:
HB 2227 – https://foac-pac.org/uploads/talking_points/A-HB-2227-Extreme_Risk_Protection_Orders-FOAC-Review.pdf
HB 2060 – https://foac-pac.org/uploads/talking_points/A-HB-2060_pn3820-FOAC_Language_Problems-Final.pdf

I am going to close with the fact that this legislation is an Existential Threat to our rights and is a TURNING POINT for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We NEED and MUST HAVE your calls, e-mails and ‘presence’ in Harrisburg on Monday and Tuesday!

The straight forward message YOU MUST TELL PA HOUSE MEMBERS is to OPPOSE both bills! No Compromise, no Deals, no Amending either one as their core structure is irredeemably flawed.

Go HERE to find the contact information for EVERY PA HOUSE MEMBER: https://foac-pac.org/PA-Legislator-Info and to find House Committee members you can go here: https://foac-pac.org/PA-House-Committees – we’ve given you the tools so now this is a no ‘excuses’ moment! The apathy of gun owners has put ALL OF US in this predicament and we are now faced with a put up or shut up moment! We have done all we can to stop these bills and NOW it is up to you!!

Yours in Freedom,
Kim Stolfer, President
FOAC

11 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Federal Judge Dismisses Class Action Against Slide Fire Solutions

A Federal Judge for the District of Nevada issued an order on September 17th dismissing a class action lawsuit against Slide Fire Solutions, makers of the notorious bump-fire stock. Slide Fire had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (which governs personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (which covers failures to state a claim for which relief can be granted).

Now I know you are all at the edge of your seats hoping for an in depth discussion about the Court’s analysis of personal jurisdiction, but this isn’t law school and I want you to come back to the blog for future articles. If you are interested, you can read the Court’s analysis of that issue here (Pages 5-13). However, the part that most of the readers will find fascinating is the Court’s analysis of Slide Fire’s claim under 12(b)(6) which points to the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA) for a defense.

PLCAA was enacted by Congress upon finding that manufacturers and sellers of firearms “are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products . . . that function as designed and intended.” Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(5)). Simply put, the statute requires Courts to immediately dismiss “qualified civil liability actions“. The term encompasses a few different things, but for the purposes of this discussion will mean civil actions “brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product . . . for damages . . . or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party…” Just as a quick aside, there are exemptions to this general rule, which you can find in the definition here.

Based on the definition above, the Court was left to wrestle with whether a bump-fire stock was a “qualified product“. In order to qualify, the bump-fire stock needed to be found to be a firearm or a component part. Of course, Congress did not define the term “component part” which meant that the Court had to give it meaning. Each party gave differing interpretations, Slide Fire arguing that it was a component part based on ATF’s guidebook and ATF’s determination letter, while the Plaintiff’s argued that they were accessories because “they are added after a consumer purchases a fully functional rifle, require post-purchase installation, and are advertised as a way to “enhance” or “overhaul” a rifle in Slide Fire’s promotional catalog”.

The Court ultimately sided with Slide Fire on its interpretation that a bump-fire stock was a “component part”. The Court found, and the parties did not dispute, that a stock was a component part of a rifle.

Thus, it follows that upon installation, the bump stock is a rifle’s operative stock and, therefore, becomes an integral part of a rifle.

As such, the Court determined that the bump-fire stocks were qualified products under PLCAA and therefor protected by the statute.

The Plaintiffs also argued that one of the exemptions was applicable because of “(1) Slide Fire’s alleged false entry on its application for a federal firearms license (“FFL”); and (2) Slide Fire’s misrepresentations to the ATF about bump stocks being intended for persons with limited mobility.” The Court declined to address the first allegation because it was not included in the complaint. In relation to the second allegation, the Court determined that “if a device’s marketability to those with disabilities was not a factor in the ATF’s finding, then it follows that Plaintiffs cannot show that Slide Fire’s misrepresentation proximately caused the injuries that are the subject of this case.” Simply put, the Court did not believe the Plaintiff’s presented enough evidence to invoke the exemption to PLCAA.

The Court gave the Plaintiffs twenty-one (21) days to amend their complaint, which means that this bumpy ride might not yet be over for Slide Fire.


screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm
Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law

Are You Federally Prohibited From Possessing Firearms And Want To Challenge It or Otherwise Restore Your Rights?

If you are federally prohibited, pursuant to criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), as a result of a non-violent misdemeanor or an involuntary mental health commitment and desire to restore your Second Amendment rights, you may be able to file a Second Amendment as-applied challenge in the federal district court.

While these types of challenges are extremely complex, as you are suing the U.S. Government, we have successfully litigated these types of challenges, including ones involving issues of first impression across the United States. For example, in an issue of first impression, Attorney Joshua Prince was successful in two Second Amendment as-applied challenges involving involuntary mental health commitments in Keyes, et al. v. Sessions, et al. Attorney Prince was also recently successful in having the Western District Court of Pennsylvania hold that a 302 commitment was not sufficient to trigger a prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) in Franklin v. Sessions, et al. We also have several challenges pending in relation to prohibitions stemming from DUIs, forgery and making false statement on a federal tax return. Unlike others, we have yet to lose a Second Amendment as-applied challenge that we have brought and the Government is acutely aware of our ability to properly and thoroughly litigate these cases in our clients’ favor.

If you are prohibited from purchasing, possessing and utilizing firearms and ammunition, pursuant to criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), as a result of a non-violent misdemeanor or mental health commitment, 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

Leave a comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

Undetectable Firearms and 3D Printing

Special Guest Author – Rick Vasquez of Rick Vasquez Firearms LLC and

former ATF Acting Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch

If you had zero knowledge of firearms as many talking heads on the media display, you might believe there is a new phenomenon called 3D printing of guns. Additionally, you may believe polymer firearms were recently designed, and thirdly, you would likely have no idea what the Undetectable Firearm Act is. With this lack of knowledge, you may spew disinformation about how modern firearms are undetectable and easily bypass all security elements.

Polymer firearms have been around several years. The first successful firearm with a polymer receiver was the H&K VP70 pistol. This pistol was introduced circa 1970. Then, of course, the Glock which took polymer firearms to a new height was introduced circa 1980-1982 ( https://eu.glock.com/en/explore-glock/glock-history). After this date, the use of polymers in firearm receivers has become common place.

During the 1980’s, the hysteria on plastic guns played out in the media exactly as it is today. There was hysteria over the ability of a polymer firearm to pass through a metal detector. In 1986, there was a supposed incident at the Atlanta Airport in which a Glock passed the screening, and it created media hysteria. It was later discovered that the screening machine was not properly being used, but why waste a good story?

The media began covering plastic and undetectable guns that could not be discovered with airport equipment. I have provided a few links to stories from the 1980s on undetectable firearms. (Footnote 1) Of course, a good lawmaker could not let misinformation go without passing an anti-gun law. Because of the issue created by the media, the Undetectable Firearm Act was passed in 1988. (Footnote 2)  Imagine if this law had made plastic firearms unlawful, what the historical impact would have been to our military and law enforcement?

But what can Congress do to alleviate a law they proposed impacting manufacturers in heavy democrat districts in 1988? If the law prohibits polymer firearms, manufacturers like Glock and S&W would be out of business. This is easy! Congress changes the meaning of a firearm receiver in the new statute. In the Gun Control Act, Title 18 U.S.C. section 921 (a)(3) firearm is defined as (3) 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 do not include an antique firearm.

The undetectable statute is listed in its’ entirety below but for comparison to the definition of a firearm receiver already in the Gun Control Act, the pertinent parts are here: Title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922 (p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm–

(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as

detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or

(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.

(2) For purposes of this subsection –

(A) the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(B) the term “major component” means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and …

In the Gun Control Act, the firearm frame is all of the following: the housing, the registered part, the part that must be serialized, and the part a background check must be conducted on for a lawful transfer. Under the Undetectable Firearm Act the receiver as defined in the GCA is not restricted to be made of plastic or polymer or any non-metallic substance. The Undetectable Firearms Act was written to only prohibit the ability of a slide or barrel to be made that does not have the same detectability as the “security exemplar.”

Recently Government experts have been informing the media that a firearm must have the same amount of metal as a security exemplar made of 3.7 ounces of PH 17- 4 stainless steel. This is incorrect, the law does not require that the slide or barrel possess at least 3.7 ounces of PH17-4 stainless steel, the law requires the handgun must be as detectable under the equipment used in 1988, as the security exemplar. This is the misinformation that is being passed through the media. Whether they are getting the information through lawmakers or law enforcement bureaus, the research is not being conducted.

This watered-down version of the law was passed to protect manufacturers in heavy democrat voting districts and then appear that they are protecting citizens against terrorist. In 1988 and today, polymer firearms are made with metal slides and barrels. These polymer receivers do not have 3.7 ounces of PF 17-4 stainless or other metal in the “receiver” that is regulated in section 921(a)(3).

 

3D Misunderstanding:

Of course, once Cody Wilson made the Liberator pistol using a 3d printer and plastic, the antigun hysteria has reawakened. Numerous government agencies bought 3D printers and made a Liberator pistol with a file that was uploaded to the internet by Cody Wilson.

Then they did their own testing. The testing shows that the plastic barrel may withstand one or a few rounds of .380 caliber ammunition.3 Numerous other agencies made AR15 lower receivers and also tested them. With affordable and available 3D printing, the AR 15 receiver is a more viable firearm to make using a 3D printer. The difference in the AR receiver is that the receiver is not the part of the firearm that accepts the chamber pressure. The chamber pressure is captured in the steel barrel in the upper assembly. Of course, there are more expensive aluminum and steel 3D printers available, but the hobbyists are not going to purchase these to make a firearm. These versions of 3D printers will eventually be cost effective as technology advances.

Remember, the Liberator is a one-shot pistol that must be disassembled to be reloaded. The World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists using boxcutters. Does the technology at the airport have the capability to pick up boxcutters?

The report prepared by a law enforcement agency on the Liberator informed Cody Wilson that if he made the Liberator pistol, he must install a 3.7 ounce piece of metal into the receiver. The following instruction was given:

The steel block recommendation reads as follows:

“Once the frame is finished, epoxy a 1.19×1.19×0.99″ block of steel in the 1.2×1.2×1.0″ hole in front of the trigger guard. Add the bottom cover over the metal if you don’t want it to show.

Once the epoxy has dried [sic], the steel is no longer removable, and is an integral part of the frame. Now your gun has 6 ounces of steel and is thus considered a ‘detectable’ firearm.” This is statutorily incorrect as 922(p) does not consider the firearm receiver the receiver. It considers the barrel and slide assembly the detectable portions. Additionally, this block of steel is not in the shape of a security exemplar and would not give off the satisfactory image required by the statute.

Cody Wilson should have been properly informed that the Liberator, having a smooth bore, is an “any other weapon” (AOW) under the National Firearms Act. If he were a licensed manufacturer of firearms and had paid the special occupational tax to make NFA weapons, he could properly register the Liberator as an “AOW”. Regardless of the registration, the barrel assembly must comply with 922(p) and have as much detectability as a 3.7-ounce 17-4 PH stainless steel security exemplar.

Since the invention of plastic firearms, there have been other designs of firearm receivers that could create an undetectable concern. Firearms manufacturers are currently making an internal metal chassis that is considered the firearm, and the polymer grip is only a housing. The following link shows a 80% pistol chassis for a Sig pistol for sale. https://www.1776supplyco.com/product/80-p320-pistol-frame/. The chassis, being the receiver, does not weigh 3.5 ounces nor will it show the same resonance as the security exemplar. Another example of a firearm that can be made with simple tools and with the receiver not being made of metal is the after-market Glock 80% receiver. https://www.glockstore.com/Spectre-Polymer80-Compact-Textured. These firearms are more available and easier to make than a 3D printed Liberator.

The real issue is the fact that our lawmakers and senior law enforcement heads do not know the subject or the laws that they pass. When asked what they are doing to fix a problem that does not exist, they create media hysteria by commenting with bizarre explanations.

Technology is advancing daily. Don’t view technology changing in a few years or even months. Think of it changing in a matter of days. The technology being used by the firearms industry is very critical to all aspects of its industry. All firearms built or provided for our military are developed by private firearms manufacturers. Our military and law enforcement do not have a firearm making capability. Therefore, firearms manufacturers, in an effort to sell their product to our military, invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing technology that benefits all sectors of U.S. manufacturing.

3D printing is a perfect example of advancing technology that was not being used to it’s potential in the manufacturing industry. Until Cody Wilson built the Liberator pistol, very few people even knew what 3D printing was or that the technology existed. Many sectors of all industry and manufacturing are now using 3D printing technology for development of different products. The cost of rapid prototyping and making new designs is decreasing rapidly.

Modern manufacturing is moving forward with new technologies and instead of trying to impede the progress by our lawmakers and law enforcement, people need to be looking for methods of detection. In 2003, I visited the Transportation Safety Administration Technology Center in Atlantic City, NJ. I met with senior personnel and discussed the types of technology that could detect supposed undetectable firearms and other undetectable items. At the time, the magnetometer that ATF owned for testing was so outdated, it could not be repaired and had not been used in several years.

In 2003, I received a lot of information regarding detection equipment and a lot of information regarding magnetometers. All of this was shared with management. Magnetometers that were in use by TSA in 2003 were technologically superior to the one that was used at the same time by FTB.   What technology is available in 2018? Previous magnetometers, as the model that FTB owned, were required to be able to detect a set of 3 specific weapons. The equipment that TSA had was sensitive enough to detect all polymer firearms, polymer knives and other weapons. Additionally, current magnetometers are calibrated on a daily basis.

Instead of fighting technology, embrace it. Use technology to defend against all threats and use the best detecting machines at the airport. A razor-sharp ceramic knife is a far superior and deadly weapon than a one or two-shot firearm that must be disassembled to be reloaded. If our airports do not have the proper equipment to detect these types of items, then our law makers should be fired. In closing, just imagine the historical impact on our law enforcement and military if our law makers had outlawed the use of plastic in the manufacturing of firearms.

 

Rick Vasquez

Former Assistant Chief/Acting Chief

ATF Firearms Technology Branch Current

Firearms Industry Advisor

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-26/news/mn-1594_1_plastic-gun https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/05/15/the-deadly-truth-about-plastic- guns/d5d14631-ed41-4fb4-bf8c-63098269cabc/?utm_term=.1ad13948a40e.

2 https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/4445/all-info

3 https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/

Attachment:

Title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922 (p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm –

(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or

(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.

(2) For purposes of this subsection –

(A) the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(B) the term “major component” means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and

(C) the term “Security Exemplar” means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Secretary, that is –

(i)constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun; and

(ii) suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors:

Provided, however, That at the close of such 12-month period, and at appropriate times thereafter the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to permit the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms previously prohibited under this subparagraph that are as detectable as a “Security Exemplar” which contains 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel, in a shape resembling a handgun, or such lesser amount as is detectable in view of advances in state-of-the-art developments in weapons detection technology.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

ATF releases 2018 Report on Firearm Commerce in the United States (Numbers, Bar Graphs, and Pie Charts!)

ATF has released its annual Firearms Commerce in the United States Statistical Update for 2018. As my one friend put it, “Let the nerdery begin.” To be fair, you have to be pretty nerdy to enjoy this stuff, hence me writing about it.

The Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) is only current through 2016. This is because AFMER data is not published until one year after the close of a calendar reporting year because the information provided by those whole filed a report is protected from immediate disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act. Which is why you see a two year lag (2016 data reporting in the beginning of 2017 and a year delay between its reporting and publication).

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 8.10.14 AM

In 2016, there were a total of 11,497,441 firearms manufactured. This was up from 2015’s number of 9,358,661 by about 20%. The number of exports was up from the previous year by about 9%, from 343,456 in 2015 to 376,818 in 2016.

The total number of imports fell from 5,137,771 in 2016 to 4,492,256 in 2017 (imports are not included not the AFMER report which is why the numbers are more current). Once again, the number of handguns imported accounts for over half the total number of firearms imported.

For those of you NFA junkies, in 2017, there was $6,371,000 in occupational taxes paid (SOTs). This is up again from the year prior and slightly under double that of 2012. Taxes paid were $22,972,00 for 2017, about a third of what was paid in 2016 ($62,596,000). Interestingly, there were 6,749 record checks, which means that ATF searched the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) that many times to determine if a firearm was possessed lawfully or if the transfer was performed lawfully. That number is up 202 times from 2016.

In 2017, there were 40,444 Form 1s and 184,312 Form 4s filed. These numbers were different from the year prior, but not by a significant margin for the Form 1s (Form 1s were down by about 9,000 but Form 4s were up about 51,000). The total number of forms processed by the NFA Branch was down about a million from the year prior. 2017 number look similar to that of 2014 and 2015.

As far as NFA firearms registered by state, Texas still leads with 637,612. Florida follows with 377,2017. California (thanks Hollywood), Virginia and Pennsylvania round out the top 5. Florida leads the charge with registered machine guns, sitting at 44,484. Texas has an astonishing 265,597 registered silencers. Florida is the next closest with 98,972 registered silencers.

CR-parrotheadjeff-dot-com

There are currently 55,588 licensed collectors of curios or relics, making it the most popular license type. It is followed closely by dealer in firearms, of which there are 56,638 active licenses. ATF reports 136,081 total active licenses (across the spectrum). Texas holds 10,920 of those licenses, making it the state with the most.

In 2017, 17 license applications were denied. This number is up exactly one from the year prior. As for compliance inspections, ATF performed 11,009 last year. This equates to 8.09% of all licensees in 2017 being inspected.

As always, the annual report helps give some insight as to ongoings within the firearms industry.

2 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

Court Filings In Pennsylvania v. Defense Distributed – An Interesting Look Behind The Scenes…

Earlier today, I blogged about the numerous news reports that an injunction had been sought against Defense Distributed, et al. and that Defense Distributed, et al. agreed to make “its sites unaccessible to Pennsylvania users,” however, at that time, there was no docket for the case. As a docket has now been generated with the filings, it is interesting to see what was actually filed in this matter, which is docketed as Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., v. Defense Distributed, et al., 2:18-cv-03208 and assigned to the Honorable Paul S. Diamond, a President George W. Bush nominee.

Defense Distributed Docket.jpg

As we already knew, Governor Wolf, Attorney General Shapiro and the Pennsylvania State Police filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, which was rendered moot, per the Court’s Order, “in light of Defendants’ agreement to refrain from posting new information and to block all challenged information from being accessed in Pennsylvania.”

What may be more interesting to our viewers is the behind-the-scenes look at the 35 page email exchange on Sunday regarding this matter and how, in allegedly emergent situations, the court can schedule hearings in a very prompt manner, regardless of date or time. I find it interesting that when challenged by Professor/Attorney Blackman in relation to the Commonwealth having witnesses which were not disclosed to him or his clients in advance, the Commonwealth argument is “We certainly have not tried to ambush you, Mr. Blackman — we have just been busy.” I guess being busy must have meant preparing a press release and twitter account postings, in advance of the hearing, so that they’d be ready to be published immediately after the hearing. Defense Distributed would be well-advised to prepare for these types of shenanigans throughout the proceedings…

If your constitutional rights have been violated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 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.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Governor Wolf and Attorney General Shapiro Violate Pennsylvania Residents’ First and Second Amendment Rights in Precluding Access to 3D Gun Files

Numerous news agencies are reporting that Governor Wolf, Attorney General Shapiro and the Pennsylvania State Police yesterday filed an emergency motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Defense Distributed, DEFCAD, Ghost Gunner and Cody Wilson, to preclude access to their websites by Pennsylvania residents and that Defense Distributed, et al., agreed to make “its sites unaccessible to Pennsylvania users,” all in violation of the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the numerous violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Although the article mentions a press release being sent out by the AG Shapiro’s Office, the AG’s website has no mention of the press release, PACER does not yet list such a matter in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania and a recently found Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief is dated July 30, 2018 (i.e. for today). Of course, in an emergency situation, it would not be unusual for a motion for a restraining order to be made in advance of a complaint being filed.

As you can see from the Complaint, Governor Wolf and Attorney General Shapiro make multiple false statements about both the factual background (e.g. that the Defense Distributed “provide[s] guns to residents of the Commonwealth”) and the law (e.g. that electronic data constitutes a firearm and that the UFA or GCA regulate data). More importantly, there are numerous ways to challenge this action, including my hope that Defense Distributed, et al., files a counterclaim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 for violation of their constitutional rights and that Governor Wolf and AG Shapiro can explain to the residents of the Commonwealth, why the taxpayers have been hit with a several hundred thousand dollar attorney fee award.

If your constitutional rights have been violated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 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.

 

8 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law