Breaking News: ATF To Issue Two Monumental Determinations

Today, at the NSSF/FAIR Trade Group’s 16th Annual Firearms Import/Export Conference, during the roundtable discussions, the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) stated that it is working on two monumental determinations regarding modular silencers and vertical/angled foregrips.

First, in relation to vertical/angled foregrips, it was disclosed that FATD has received numerous requests for determination. These requests vary greatly in form and substance and resulted in Branch Chief Curtis stating that some form of determination would be issued to the Firearms Industry; hopefully in the coming weeks. He even mentioned that at this point, the degree of the angled foregrip would have to be addressed in the determination, after review of all past determinations, including ones issued by his predecessors and ones which may be in conflict.

Second, in relation to modular silencers, FATD acknowledged that it currently has pending before it a request for determination of legality from a modular silencer manufacture. Division Chief Griffith and Branch Chief Curtis raised concern over the determination request and the issues that must be addressed, including whether modular silencer are legal, when reduced in size. In essence, the concern stems from there arguably existing additional silencer parts that are not part of the modular silencer’s configuration, when it is reduced in length. In the event that ATF would rule that modular silencers are generally lawful, it raises a plethora of other issues, including where the markings must be placed (which is interrelated to ATF’s currently pending rulemaking: ATF-29P) or whether such silencers would require either specific location markings or multiple markings.

This means that if you are a silencer manufacturer, who manufactures modular silencers, there is still time to submit legal arguments to FATD as to the general legality of modular silencers. If you wish to submit legal arguments, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) today to discuss your options.

Although ATF was reluctant to state whether these determinations would be in the form of “policy determinations,” “guidance” or “formal rulings,”  and stated that it could not provide an exact timeframe for these determinations, it was stated that they are overdue and should be expected in the very near future.

Stay tuned for a blog article from Attorney Adam Kraut on other news and revelations from the 16th Annual Firearms Import/Export Conference!


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 ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

After 5 Years of Violating Its Own Regulations, ATF Publishes State Laws and Published Ordinances – Firearms (32nd Edition)

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 7.33.26 AM.png

ATF has published its long overdue update to the State Laws and Published Ordinances. The publication was announced to retailers who attended the NICS Retailer Day held at FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Center this past Monday.

Prior to the publication of this edition, ATF had violated its own regulations by consistently failing to “annually revise and furnish Federal firearms licensees with a compilation of State laws and published ordinances” since 2011. Had a licensee failed to do something the regulations required them to do for a period of 6 years, they would have almost certainly been found to have “willfully” violated the Gun Control Act.

The newest edition provides licensees and individuals with information that is current through January 2017. If a state has passed a new law since, it will not be reflected in this edition of the publication.

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 7.32.21 AM

Rather than publishing a large .pdf file, ATF opted to break each state into its own chapter. At the beginning of each state’s laws and ordinances, there is contact information for the ATF Field Division and State’s Attorney General.

The message from Acting Director Thomas Brandon does cause some concern.

Interpretation of a State or local law or ordinance:  Contact your State police, local law enforcement authority, or your State Attorney General’s office.

Anyone who has ever contacted law enforcement for the interpretation of laws knows that the police officers are not always correct in their interpretation of the law, as they are charged with enforcement rather than interpretation of it. However, the website, immediately under Mr. Brandon’s message, states “If you have any questions regarding State, County or local laws, please contact your state’s Attorney General.”

It’s nice to see ATF following their own regulations after a 6 year lapse in compliance.

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

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

Attorney Franklin Presents at Pennsylvania Bar Association Conference

 

PBA ConferencePrince Law Offices, P.C. Attorney Jeffrey A. Franklin was pleased to present two sessions at the Annual Pennsylvania Bar Association Solo and Small Practice Conference at Bedford Springs this week. Attorney Franklin spoke regarding Title 15 (new Pennsylvania business entity law Act 170) and Virtual Practice technology issues.

Mr. Franklin assists entrepreneurs to form new business entities, to improve existing businesses, and with mergers and acquisitions.  If you desire assistance regarding your business formation, agreements, intellectual property, trademarks, copyright, zoning, real estate law, cyber security, insurance, etc., contact attorney Jeffrey A. Franklin at Prince Law Offices, P.C.

1 Comment

Filed under Business Law, Computer Law, Real Estate, Trademark and Copyright

FTC Cybersecurity Roundtables with Small Businesses

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is hosting small business owners in a series of public roundtables across the United States to discuss the most pressing challenges small businesses face in protecting the security of their computers and networks.

Engage, connect, protect - small business & data security roundtablesThe Engage, Connect, and Protect Initiative: Small Business and Data Security Roundtables are part of an ongoing initiative by Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen aimed at helping small businesses, which included the launch of a new website in May focused on helping small business owners avoid scams and protect their computers and networks from cyberattacks. There are more than 28 million small businesses nationwide, employing nearly 57 million people, according to the Small Business Administration (SBA).

“The FTC has been a leader in guiding businesses of all sizes on how to protect the data in their care,” Acting Chairman Ohlhausen said. “Companies with only a few employees face unique challenges when it comes to cybersecurity. We’ll use what we learn in the roundtables to tailor our practical resource materials for small businesses.”

The first roundtable event will take place July 25 in Portland, Oregon, in partnership with the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA), the SBA, and other organizations. This event will be followed by a roundtable discussion in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 6, hosted by the FTC and the Council of Smaller Enterprises and in collaboration with the SBA. Another roundtable event will take place later in September in Des Moines, Iowa, sponsored by the NCSA.

The roundtables will bring together FTC staff along with the SBA and other federal partners, industry associations, and the small business community. The comments and feedback generated by the roundtables will be used to help the FTC and its partners provide additional education and guidance for small business owners on cybersecurity issues.

If you or your business have questions or concerns regarding fraud, computer law, privacy, or cybersecurity law matters, contact attorney Jeffrey A. Franklin at Prince Law Offices.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Law, Communications Law, Computer Law, Consumer Advocacy, Energy Law

USCIS Releases New Form I-9 Dated July 17, 2017

USCIS_Sig_Rib_VertU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a revised version of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, on July 17, 2017. Instructions for how to download Form I-9 are available on the Form I-9 page. Employers can use this revised version or continue using Form I-9 with a revision date of 11/14/16 N through Sept. 17, 2017. On Sept. 18, employers must use the revised form with a revision date of 07/17/17 N. Employers must continue following existing storage and retention rules for any previously completed Form I-9.

Revisions to the Form I-9 instructions:

  • USCIS changed the name of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices to its new name, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section.
  • USCIS removed “the end of” from the phrase “the first day of employment.”

Revisions related to the List of Acceptable Documents on Form I-9:

  • USCIS added the Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) to List C. Employers completing Form I-9 on a computer will be able to select Form FS-240 from the drop-down menus available in List C of Sections 2 and 3. E-Verify users will also be able to select Form FS-240 when creating a case for an employee who has presented this document for Form I-9.
  • USCIS combined all the certifications of report of birth issued by the Department of State (Form FS-545, Form DS-1350, and Form FS-240) into selection C #2 in List C.
  • USCIS renumbered all List C documents except the Social Security card. For example, the employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security on List C changed from List C #8 to List C #7.

Desire more specific assistance regarding immigration matters, your business formation, agreements, intellectual property, trademarks, copyright, zoning, real estate law, cyber security, insurance, etc., contact attorney Jeffrey A. Franklin at Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Law, Immigration Law

HAVE YOU BEEN SUED BY A COMPANY YOU NEVER HEARD OF FOR MONEY YOU BORROWED FROM SOMEONE ELSE?

The average consumer does not realize that the delinquent debt industry is a trillion dollar a year business. Everybody has borrowed money to buy a house, buy a car, for school loans or over charged credit cards. A large number of these loans will end up in default. These troubled loans have a market. There are very large debt buyers who purchase millions of dollars of delinquent debt for pennies on the dollar. The debt buyers purchase the delinquent accounts at a substantial discount and then come after consumers for the full balance. The debt buyers purchase large volume of delinquent accounts often purchasing tens of thousands of accounts at a time. The purchases are often made electronically with only the data being stored and transferred. Hard copy documents such as the original loan agreement often are lost or were never transferred from the original creditor to the debt buyer. A problem for the debt buyers arises when the consumer challenges the claim and the debt buyer can not prove that the consumer entered into the original loan agreement.

Debt buyers do not want their right to collect on obligation challenged by consumers. Debt buyers purchase delinquent debt in large volume aware that many of the accounts will be uncollectable. Debt buyers make a business decision to try and collect as high of a percentage of the delinquent debt accounts as possible. Typically, debt buyers hire debt collectors and/or debt collection attorneys to collect the delinquent debt. The debt collectors or debt collection attorneys will be assigned a large number of accounts for consumers in the area where the debt collectors or attorneys practice. They are paid a percentage of each account they are able to collect on, approximately 15% to 20% percent of whatever they manage to collect on each account. Remember, debt buyers have purchased the delinquent debt accounts for pennies on the dollars so any money they recover is usually profit. If the debt buyers average 50% collection of the delinquent debt on 10% to 20% of the accounts they have purchased but fail to collect on 80% to 90% of the delinquent accounts purchased, the debt buyers will still make a profit. It is in the best interest of debt buyers and the debt collectors to get the money from the consumers as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Any challenge to the claim by the consumer wastes time and costs money which ultimately reduces profit.

For this reason, debt buyers do not want to start a law suit unless they are forced to. It is much more cost affective to send a demand letter threatening legal action in attempt to get the consumer to agree to pay back the debt. This creates an opportunity to negotiate with the debt buyers to reduce the amount of the obligation or to pay it back over time. The debt buyers are more than willing to work out a repayment plan because they have purchased these accounts for pennies on the dollar. For some that is a reasonable option. Hard times may have led to the original default and now when the consumer is in a better position they wish repay their loan or credit obligation.

What many consumers don’t realize is that in this computer electronic transfer age, may of these debt buyers never received the original loan documents and can not prove the original debt or that they actual own the right to collect on the debt. Recently, a New York Times article discussed this problem with regards to privately held student loans.  In summary, the article discusses how debt buyers who own at least 5 billion in troubled private student loans could not prove they had a right to collect. As a result, many consumers where seeing thousand of dollars of their student loans wiped out because the loans were uncollectable.

Credit card debt is very difficult to prove for third party buyers of debt in Pennsylvania. In 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Commonwealth Financial Sytems, Inc. v. Larry Smith, No 3455 EDA 2009. In that matter, Mr. Smith obtained a Citibank credit card in 1989 and proceeded to use it for the next thirteen years. By July 2004, Mr. Smith’s account was delinquent account and was sold to Commonwealth who filed suit in March 2006 seeking $5,435.93, plus interest at 23.99% per annum, plus attorney fees at a rate of 20%, and costs. Commonwealth failed to attach many of the original documents and those that were attached the Court found were inadmissible hearsay and did not qualify under the business record exception of the hearsay rule. The question of whether computerized files of an original creditor were admissible as the business records of a successor debt buyer was one of first impression in Pennsylvania. Without the original creditor testifying, the debt buyer could not establish the trustworthiness of the documents, the chain of title, and/or whether an original contract existed.

Any consumer who receives a letter from a debt buyer needs to understand that while a debt buyer may claim it has the right to collect the delinquent debt, they still have the burden of proving that right in court.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized