Category Archives: Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Endorsement – Craig Stedman for Superior Court Judge

Today, I am formally announcing my endorsement of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman for the Pennsylvania Superior Court. While some may be surprised with my endorsement of District Attorney Stedman – as I have been critical of him in relation to two specific matters – candidate Stedman provided me the unique opportunity to speak with him extensively about his positions and those matters, where I learned that my original criticism was misplaced, based upon a misunderstanding of his awareness of the situation, and which has resulted in me truly believing that he would be a phenomenal addition to the Superior Court.

In a conversation that lasted over an hour, we discussed everything from how his Office handles prosecutions of individuals who putatively make false statements on the ATF 4473 forms to preemption violations to self-defense claims and his ardent support for the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21. In relation to the one matter where I previously criticized him, I learned that he was not aware of the prosecution and as soon as he became aware, he immediately and personally reviewed all the evidence, sat down with Assistant District Attorneys in his Office that were involved and explained to them how it would be a manifest injustice for the prosecution to continue. As a result, he directed that the charges be immediately dismissed.

We also discussed numerous cases and decisions that he made, which clearly reflect his steadfast devotion to the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21. In this vein, I was genuinely surprised to leave our conversation with one overarching feeling – he sincerely cares about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I cannot honestly state the last time, in speaking with an appellate judicial candidate, that I left with anywhere close to that feeling.

While many of you are aware that I do not take the endorsement of candidates – especially judicial candidates – lightly, as I truly believe that District Attorney Stedman respects and will continue to honor the Second Amendment, as well as, our other constitutional rights, I am proud to endorse him for the Superior Court. As it is imperative that we only elect judges that respect the Constitution, which I wholeheartedly believe District Attorney Stedman does, I am respectfully asking that you vote for him in November. Together, we can ensure that our inalienable rights are protected.

To learn more about Craig Stedman for Superior Court, check out his website and Facebook page. Obviously, if you are in a financial position to be able to donate to his campaign, I am sure he would greatly appreciate support!

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, News & Events, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

South Heidelberg Township To Require Firearm Renters To Do What?!?!

Over the weekend, it was reported by Reporter Keith Dmochowski of the Reading Eagle that during the South Heidelberg Township Board of Supervisors meeting on Thursday, August 10th, the Board of Supervisors agreed to require C.P. Tactical Solutions Inc. to enter into “a written agreement requiring background checks for gun rentals.” The article goes on to declare:

Solicitor Michael Gombar said that holding C.P. Tactical Solutions Inc. to a signed pledge will ensure that firearms are rented responsibly, despite the fact that background screenings for firearm rentals are not mandated by the township.

More interestingly, Solicitor Gombar further stated, in relation to a question as to why the Township hasn’t enacted an ordinance requiring such background checks of all firearm businesses, that

[t]he concern with putting anything into law is not necessarily that this company will not abide by it, but that the NRA and other gun-rights lobbies make it their point to find municipalities that are setting regulations, and fight them.

Nevertheless, Solicitor Gombar went on to declare that:

the terms of the agreement would allow police and code officers to perform random checks as a safeguard against potential violations…[and] that legal action would be pursued if the shop fails to provide background checks after signing the agreement. (emphasis added).

As a result, Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., filed a letter on behalf of its client, Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), advising that any such agreement would result in felony and misdemeanor violations under the law and that FOAC was considering legal action, if the Township proceeded with the agreement. It appears that Solicitor Gombar and the elected Township Officials have failed to review federal and state law, both of which preclude the use of the background checks system (NICS and PICS, respectively), except in relation to the sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm. As an onsite firearm rental does not constitute a sale or transfer of a firearm, any use of NICS or PICS would be abusive and result in violations of federal and state law. They also appear unaware of the confidentiality provisions of Pennsylvania law, which also provide for civil liability, where confidentiality is breached.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an unlawful municipal firearm or ammunition regulation or ordinance, contact FICG today to discuss your 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.

4 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Strattanville Borough Declines To Move Forward With Firearm Discharge Ordinance

As our viewers are aware, we previously blogged about Strattanville Borough’s proposal to enact a firearm discharge ordinance, which resulted in Firearm Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., submitting a letter written in opposition on behalf of Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) by Chief Counsel Joshua Prince.

Last night, Strattanville Borough voted, 5-2, not to move forward with the firearm discharge ordinance due to the legal ramifications and FOAC preparedness to institute legal proceedings against the Borough, if it moved forward with any form of firearm or ammunition regulation.

Please join us in congratulating FICG and FOAC in this accomplishment!

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an unlawful municipal firearm or ammunition regulation or ordinance, contact FICG today to discuss your 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.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Armed Vehicle Defense – Are You Actually Prepared?

For a while now, I’ve had on my bucket list to attend an armed vehicle defense class, so that I could be better prepared if it became necessary for me to defend myself (or others) from within my vehicle, especially given the amount that I travel and find myself in a vehicle.

Unfortunately, with my insane schedule, it has proven difficult. However, this weekend, an opportunity presented itself to attend Trop Gun Shop‘s Armed Vehicle Defense two-day class, which is taught by Phill Groff. For those of you who don’t know Phill, I cannot do his background justice. For brevity, he has a substantial military and law enforcement bckground, with an emphasis on training law enforcement officers. But don’t let this concern you; Phill is an extremely down-to-earth and a phenomenal teacher, with actual real-life experiences and stories, unlike some trainers and YouTube commandos. But, you aren’t reading this because you want his CV – you already know that if I’m spending the time writing an article on the class that he taught, he has the necessary skill-set and is a phenomenal instructor. Rather, your question is: “But, Josh, why do I need training on use of a firearm in or around a vehicle?”

The answer is simple – for most of us, we utilize our vehicles to get to and from work. In addition, many of us utilize our vehicles daily to pick up and drop off our children and other tasks. Take a quick minute and think of all the times you used your vehicle in the last week (grocery store, department store, gas station, take-out food, going to and from a restaurant or event,…etc). Most of us spend far more time in our vehicles than we realize.

“But Josh, this still doesn’t answer my question.” You’re right. First, you need to realize the amount of time that you spend in your vehicle to understand the importance of an armed vehicle defense class. Then, you need to consider what that means in relation to your current training.

If you’re like most people, you spend a limited amount of range time preparing for the unlikely event that you are required to pull your firearm. That may, or may not, be enough to make you proficient at shooting paper and steel and maybe even pulling from your IWB concealed holster; but, have you trained for pulling your firearm while seated? With the a seat belt? Do you know the techniques for drawing your firearm in your car with a steering wheel in extremely close proximity to you? What about window deflection? Does it change whether you’re shooting from inside the vehicle to outside or from outside to inside? (Hint, YEP! Do you know how much each way? They’re FAR from the same and you need to know how to compensate based on your ammunition).  What if you have other occupants in the vehicle, like a friend, spouse or children – do you know the proper techniques to limit their likelihood of being shot by friendly fire? Remember, the assailant could come from the back quarter-panel or trunk of your vehicle. Do you know what parts of your car provide concealment versus cover? You might be surprised at the (limited) amount of cover that a vehicle provides to occupants, even to pistol calibers; however, you may likewise be surprised at the amount of rifle and shotgun calibers that cannot penetrate through a car. Per Phill’s trademarked slogan, the cover provided by a vehicle is consistently inconsistent.

One of many of the great aspects of Trop’s Armed Vehicle Defense class is the ballistic labs that you’ll go through, where you’ll get to see the result of pistol, rifle and shotgun (and even your own!) rounds impacting a vehicle. Think your defensive carry rounds are the best all-around for any situation you may find yourself in? You might be surprised…

You’ll also have an opportunity to shoot paper and steel from in, under and around vehicles – hell, while in one vehicle, you’re crashed into another (at 5-7 mph) and thereafter have to engage threats. Do I need to say more? Well, if you’re still not sold, after learning many of these invaluable lessons and skills, you then have an opportunity to see and try their real world application through force on force Simunitions. If you’ve never experienced force on force with Simunitions, then the class is worth it for this alone! If you have, then you know how phenomenal an opportunity it is to train force on force with Simunitions.

I simply cannot emphasize how invaluable this class was and the amount of knowledge that I obtained from these two days. I highly recommend that you take an armed vehicle defense class if you spend any amount of time in your vehicle. It just may save your life.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

FICG On Behalf of FOAC Files Letter In Response To Strattanville Borough’s Proposed Illegal Firearm Ordinance

Yesterday, it was reported by Reporter Scott Shindledecker of ExploreClarion.com that Strattanville Borough was considering enacting an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms in the borough.

Borough Solicitor Ralph L.S. Montana was quoted as saying that he has his work cut out for him because “[t]here aren’t too many places in Pennsylvania that have firearms ordinances.” Maybe that is due to the fact that municipal firearm and ammunition regulation is unlawful pursuant to Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as affirmed by the PA Supreme Court in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, and our state preemption statute found in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120.

Although Solicitor Montana was unwilling to share a copy of his proposed ordinance before submitting it to the Borough Council on Wednesday, August 9th at 7 PM, he did mention that he found Rose Valley Borough’s [unlawful] ordinance, which this ordinance would be based upon.

As a result, Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., on behalf of its client, Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), filed a letter in opposition to the proposal; wherein, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince explains the constitutional and statutory protections and case law precluding such regulation. In the event Strattanville Borough moves forward with the proposal, FOAC is prepared to file a legal challenge against the Borough and request the District Attorney to file criminal charges for violations of Section 6120.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an unlawful municipal firearm or ammunition regulation or ordinance, contact FICG today to discuss your 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.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

PA Supreme Court Denies Lower Merion Township’s Petition for Allocatur Involving Its Illegal Firearm Regulations

As our viewers are aware from my prior article on January 27, 2017, after the the Commonwealth Court issued its decision in Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), et al. v. Lower Merion Township, where it held that Lower Merion Township’s preclusion of firearms and discharge in township parks was unlawful, Lower Merion Township filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was docketed at 36 MAL 2017.

Today, the PA Supreme Court denied Lower Merion’s Petition for Allowance, therefore making final the Commonwealth Court’s decision in FOAC, et al. v. Lower Merion Township.

If your rights have been violated by an illegal firearm or ammunition ordinance or regulation promulgated by a state agency, county, municipality or township, contact us today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

PSP PICS System Stripped of Funding for 2017-2018

At midnight last night, in the absence of Governor Wolf taking any action, HB 218 became law, which, inter alia, stripped the Pennsylvania State Police of the $4,575,000 of additional funding sought by the PSP for the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) for 2017-2018.

HB-0218-PICS_Budget_Appropriation-17-06-29-ZERO

As you can see, although the PSP putatively did not have any remaining PICS funds from the 2016-2017 budget (unlike every other appropriation), the PSP has $9.8 million in a restricted account, just for use for PICS and which was generated from PICS. So much for PSP’s argument that they lose money in relation to PICS. I also have on good information that $3.3 million of the $9.8 million was just added last year. Requests for more information regarding the receipt of funds to this restricted account have been requested.

While some savvy individuals reviewing HB 218 might point to the $8,757,000 seemingly being appropriated for the “Firearm Records Check Fund,” it is important to explain that such is the removal of that amount from the PSP’s restricted account, reducing it from $9.8 million to approximately $1 million.

It is time for the citizens of Pennsylvania to stop paying millions of dollars, each year, for a broken and duplicative system, when the FBI offer NICS to us for free.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law