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.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

New Workers’ Comp Bill from Legislature in Light of Governor Wolf’s Veto of Their Last Effort

by Karl Voigt

April of this year saw Governor Wolf’s veto of Senate Bill 936, which called for a drug formulary for treatment of injured workers. This was a victory for injured workers. Advocates of the formulary claimed that it would have addressed the opioid epidemic and the high cost of compound creams. Opponents maintained that it would hinder doctors from treating their patients in the best way possible. Now, just weeks after that veto, the legislature has introduced a new bill that again seeks to: 1) create a formulary for pain medications and 2) limit the cost of compound creams.

With respect to the latter, compound creams can sometimes deliver medication directly. Instead of a pill, a blend of pain medications often can be compounded into a gel, cream or spray applied directly to the site of the pain and absorbed through the skin. These creams can be effective, but can also be expensive.

The new legislation, Senate Bill 1187, would seek to limit the price a workers’ compensation insurer has to pay for these creams to 110% of the wholesale price of the individual medications.

More threatening, however, is the new bill’s revived effort to create a workers’ compensation formulary. Once again, this formulary would interfere with patient care by dictating to doctors what medications they can prescribe for injuries, regardless of what they feel would be the best way to treat the injury.

The text of the bill can be found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Workers' Compensation

Supreme Court declines to extend automobile exception to Fourth Amendment to vehicles parked in driveways or curtilage of home.

In yet another victory for Fourth Amendment advocates, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2018 ruled against a warrantless search and examination of motorcycle under a tarp in the driveway of a home.   In the matter of Ryan Austin Collins vs. Virginia, No. 16-1027, the Court in a 8-1 decision reversed the lower court’s decision which upheld a warrantless search of motorcycle under the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment.

An orange and black motorcycle was believed to have been stolen and in the possession of Mr. Collins. Apparently Mr. Collins was proud of his accomplishment and posted photos of the stolen motorcycle parked in his driveway on his Facebook profile. The police discovered the photos on Mr. Collins’ Facebook profile, drove to his house and observed what appeared to be the motorcycle under a tarp parked in Mr. Collin’s driveway. The arresting police officer acting without a search warrant, walked to the top of the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed that it was the stolen motorcycle, returned the tarp, and waited for Mr. Collins to return.

Upon his return Mr. Collins was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property. At trial, Mr. Collins sought to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they had trespassed on Mr. Collins’s house curtilage (driveway) to conduct a warrantless search. Mr. Collins was convicted of receiving stolen property. The conviction was affirmed by the Virginia Court of Appeals who found “numerous exigencies justified both the entry onto the property and the moving of the tarp to view the motorcycle and record its identification number.” The Virginia Supreme Court also affirmed the conviction holding that the warrantless search was justified under the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. The State Supreme Court held that the police officer had probable cause to believe that the motorcycle was contraband, and that the warrantless search was justified.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the police certain latitude to search vehicles on public streets without a warrant, also allows the police to walk up a driveway without a warrant and search a vehicle parked in the area near a house.

The so-called automobile exception, first articulated in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), allows police to search a car without a warrant if the car is “readily mobile” and they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime.

The Court began its Fourth Amendment discussion by examining the intersecting case law of the so-called automobile exception to the warrant requirement with case law extending the protection against warrantless searches to the curtilage of a home. The “curtilage” of a home being the area immediately surrounding the house, where residents expect privacy.

In its near unanimous opinion written by Justus Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that the driveway where Mr. Collins’ motorcycle was parked was part of the curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor further wrote, “To allow an officer to rely on the automobile exception to gain entry to a house or its curtilage for the purpose of conducting a vehicle search would unmoor the exception from its justifications, render hollow the Fourth Amendment protection the Constitution extends to the house and its curtilage, and transform what was meant to be an exception into a tool with far broader application,”

The court explained that the justification for the automobile exception doesn’t consider a resident’s privacy interest in his home and its curtilage at all; rather, the rationale rests on the twin ideas that cars can easily be moved and are subject to regulation simply by virtue of being on the roads.

The stated that there are no Supreme Court’s cases that indicates the automobile exception allows a police officer to enter the home or its curtilage without a warrant to search a vehicle – if anything, the court has emphasized the need to treat “automobiles differently from houses.”

The sole dissent in the case was filed by Justice Samuel Alito, who stated that “The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable’ searches,” and that, “What the police did in this case was entirely reasonable.”

2 Comments

Filed under Constitutional Law, Uncategorized

Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut Testify Before the PA House Judiciary Committee

Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., jointly testified before the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee regarding a number of anti-Second Amendment and anti-Article 1, Section 21 proposals that were previously discussed during the 6 day hearings on “public safety.” As specified in Exhibit H to the Joint Testimony, there are significant constitutional issues with these proposals, under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions, and several of the proposals seek to discriminate against the Amish, as a result of their closely-held religious beliefs. Live streaming will be available at RonMarsico.com, and PAHouseGOP.com

Please join us in thanking Attorneys Prince and Kraut for the monumental amount of time expended in the researching and drafting of their joint testimony. As many have inquired about donating to support the time expended, anyone wishing to donate can:

  • Pay via the secure website: Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. – Please place “House Judiciary Testimony” in the reference field, or
  • Mail donations to: Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., 646 Lenape Rd, Bechtelsville, PA 19505 and include a note or letter stating that it is in relation to House Judiciary Testimony”.

Together, we can ensure that our inalienable rights are never encroached upon!

 


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

PA Governor Wolf and Republican Members of the General Assembly Seek to Preclude the Amish from Obtaining Guns and Ammunition

Several months ago, a number of bills were submitted by Members of the General Assembly, seeking to prohibit the private transfer of rifles and shotguns – thereby, requiring that all transfers or purchases of any type of firearm, go through a Federal Firearms Licensee – and more recently, Governor Wolf called upon the General Assembly to pass the legislation, which, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would absolutely preclude the Amish from obtaining any type of firearm, due to their closely-held religious convictions, which preclude their picture being taken.

Specifically, House Bill 1400, offered by Representative James Santora (R) with 73 sponsors, and House Bill 2249, offered by Representative Thomas Murt (R) with 17 sponsors, seek to preclude the private party sale of a rifle or shotgun, while House Bill 2251, offered by Representative Thomas Murt (R) with 8 sponsors, seeks to preclude the  purchase of ammunition, except from a Federal Firearm Licensee or gun range and only after a background check is performed. Of course, as there is no way for an entity, absent a Federal Firearms License, to perform a background check, this means that the inclusion of gun range is dubious, as it will have to have a Federal Firearms License to perform the background check.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1)(C), a Federal Firearm Licensee is barred from selling or transferring a firearm to an individual, unless the individual can produce a “valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d) of this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee.”

Due to Pennsylvania having the second largest Amish population in the U.S. and the Amish’s closely-held religious beliefs, pursuant to Exodus 20:4, that preclude the taking of their photograph, the General Assembly, being acutely aware of the federal requirement that an individual produce photo-identification when purchasing a firearm from a federal firearms licensee, not only provided an exemption for private party sales of rifles and shotguns in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111, but also, exempted those members with closely-held religious beliefs from the photo ID requirement under state law and even provided for photo-less driver licenses and licenses to carry firearms. See, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(b)(2), 67 Pa.Code § 73.3(d)(4), and 37 Pa.Code 33.102.

However, if H.B. 1400 and H.B. 2249 are enacted, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, et seq., the Amish will be precluded from purchasing or having any form of firearm transferred to them, because they will have to obtain the firearm through a Federal Firearms Licensee, which will require that they produce photo-identification. Similarly, issue are likely to arise in relation to HB 2251, as it mandates that a background check be performed, which means that the entity will have to be a Federal Firearms Licensee. Moreover, a search/query of the NICS database would be an abuse of the NICS system, as federal law does not require a background check for the purchase of ammunition and NICS can only be searched/queried for lawful purposes permitted by federal law.

It is truly sad to see Members of our General Assembly seeking to discriminate against those with closely-held religious convictions. Please take some time out of your day to contact your State Legislators and let them know that you oppose these bills and any other bills that seek to discriminate against those with closely-held religious beliefs.

If you or someone you know has been precluded from obtaining firearms or ammunition as a result of your closely-held religious convictions, 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.

5 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

PUC Orders 17 Utilities to Return $320+ Million to Consumers Following Federal Tax Reform

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) on May 17, 2018 issued an Order, puc_sealrequiring a “negative surcharge” or monthly credit on customer bills for 17 major electric, natural gas, and water and wastewater utilities, totaling more than $320-million per year. The refunds to consumers are the result of the substantial decrease in federal corporate tax rates and other tax changes under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which impacted the tax liability of many utilities.

Additionally, the PUC will consider the effects of federal tax reform on seven other public utilities as part of the investigations for rate cases which have already been filed or are expected to be filed by Aug. 1, 2018. In those situations, the Commission has directed the parties involved to address the impact of any TCJA tax savings as part of the overall rate design for each utility.

Today’s Order, along with a series of orders specific to each affected utility, were approved by 5-0 votes. The PUC’s action today follows an extensive investigation into the effects of federal tax reform on the rates charged by Commission-regulated utilities – which, among other things, reflect annual taxes owed both to the federal and state governments.

“As economic regulators, it is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that utility rates are just and reasonable. Further, it is necessary for utility rates to reflect relevant tax expenses,” noted PUC Chairman Gladys M Brown in a statement at today’s public meeting. “I believe this work (by PUC staff) has resulted in an innovative answer by this Commission to effectively flow-through the benefits of the TCJA back to customers.”

Vice Chairman Andrew G. Place also praised staff’s work in this complex proceeding and agreed with the Commission’s overall approach. However, he indicated that the utilities’ overall cost of capital and rate of return should apply on the accumulated balances of tax savings for the period between January 1 and June 30, 2018.

Depending on the revenue and tax impact on each utility addressed in today’s PUC orders, the distribution charges on monthly consumer bills are expected to decrease from .56-percent to 8.55-percent. A list of the utilities impacted by today’s PUC orders, along with the anticipated changes in distribution rates, has been posted to the online docket for this matter: M-2018-2641242.  Tax Effects

Public utilities required to begin returning federal tax savings to consumers include Citizens’ Electric Company of Lewisburg, Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, Pike County Light & Power Company, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Wellsboro Electric Company, West Penn Power Company, PECO Energy Company (Gas Division), National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, Peoples Gas Company LLC, Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC—Equitable Division, UGI Central Penn Gas Inc., UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc., UGI Utilities, Inc.–Gas Division, Pennsylvania-American Water Company and Pennsylvania-American Water Company—Wastewater.

Utilities not required to take immediate action because of the continuing analysis of tax reform impacts on their current or pending rate cases include UGI Utilities, Inc. (Electric), Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., Duquesne Light Company, PECO Energy Company (Electric), York Water Company, Suez Water Pennsylvania, Inc. and Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc.  In each of those situations, any tax savings will be considered as part of the broader evaluation of their rates.

The Commission also noted that one Pennsylvania public utility saw no financial impact or an increased federal tax liability as the result of TCJA. Per today’s order, Columbia Water Company is directed to file a tariff or tariff supplement within 10 days, replacing their current rates, which were declared to be “temporary” by Commission action in March 2018.

Finally, the Commission investigation determined that two utilities are receiving only a small increased tax liability from TCJA – Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC and Newtown Artesian Water Company. For these two utilities, the Commission’s previous order declaring their rates to be temporary will continue, subject to annual reconciliation.

Desire more specific assistance regarding PUC matters or energy law, contact attorney Jeffrey A. Franklin at Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Law, Consumer Advocacy, Energy Law

Trump to Alleviate ITAR Obligations for Firearm and Ammunition Manufacturers and Gunsmiths

As our readers are aware, for almost a decade, I have blogged about the obligation of firearm and ammunition manufacturers to register with the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC) under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as well as, DDTC’s stepped up enforcement against Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) starting in 2012. More recently, the DDTC issued guidance, which placed many gunsmiths out of business because it declared that most gunsmithing activities constituted manufacturing, which in turn required registration at a cost of $2,250, per year, in addition to the compliance costs. After years of requests that firearms and ammunition under Categories I, II and III of the U.S. Munitions List be moved over under the Department of Commerce, today the Department of State has published on its website proposed regulatory changes, which will afford a 45 day comment period, once formally published in the Federal Register. While the proposed changes are monumental, as described below, there are concerns regarding the proposed regulatory changes, which necessitate that those effected obtain competent counsel to timely file comments for DDTC’s consideration. DDTC.jpg

The 42 page proposal provides significant changes in that non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms and ammunition, as well as parts and defense services related thereto, that are currently regulated by Category I, II or III of the U.S. Munitions List will be moved over to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which are administered by the Department of Commerce and where there does not exist a registration requirement for the mere manufacture of controlled items, nor is there an annual fee (however, licensing requirements for exports will remain but under EAR). However, fully automatic firearms and ammunition for linked or beltfed firearms will remain under ITAR.

While the proposal is extremely beneficial for many FFLs and it is not surprising that fully automatic firearms are remaining under ITAR, for some unknown reason, silencers, all silencer parts and defense services related thereto, will will remain under ITAR (however, flash suppressors will be moved over under EAR). Additionally, magazine manufacturers that manufacture magazines that have a capacity in excess of 50 rounds must also continue to register under ITAR. This places a monumental burden on small and mid-sized silencer and magazine manufacturers, especially when one considers the compliance requirements and costs, beyond the yearly registration cost of $2,250.

If you or your company wants to file a comment requesting that DDTC consider moving silencers, large capacity magazines, or other items over under EAR, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) to discuss your options, as FICG has a number of attorneys with the necessary experience and understanding of the issues surrounding Administrative Law, the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act to ensure that any comment is properly and thorough prepared.

For those interested in some of the comments that FICG has drafted and filed on behalf of Industry Members and itself in opposition to rulemaking by ATF, see:

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF – 41P – ATF’s proposed (and later enacted) rule to impose additional burdens on fictitious entity applications.

FICG Files Comment on behalf of David Goldman, Esq. of GunTrustLawyer.com in Opposition to ATF-41P

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF 51P – ATF’s proposed rule to ATF’s to amend the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.”

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF 29P on Behalf of Dead Air Armament – ATF’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding silencer engravings.

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Changes to the 4473 Form

 


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 ATF, Firearms Law