Tag Archives: Firearms Industry Consulting Group

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

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

FICG/Prince Law Offices, P.C.’s Bi-Annual Machinegun Shoot – October 21, 2017!

Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG)®, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., will be hosting our twelfth bi-annual machine gun shoot at Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun Club on October 21, 2017, in celebration of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, and Article 1, Section 21 of the PA Constitution. Eastern Lancaster Rod and Gun Club is located at 966 Smyrna Road, Kinzers, PA 17535. It will start at 11am and go until 4pm. From 11am until 2:30pm, it will be unsuppressed and suppressed fire. From 2:30pm until 4pm, only suppressed fire will be allowed. Come on out and meet FICG Chief Counsel and your PA Firearms Lawyer, Joshua Prince, as well as, as other FICG attorneys!

Everyone, over 18 years of age, is welcome to attend. We are sorry but the insurer will not allow anyone under 18 to participate. There will be a small area for observers, under the age of 18, to watch the shoot. The only requirement is that you bring a driver’s license and hearing and eye protection. All attendees will be required to sign a waiver.

There will be several dealers and manufacturers in attendance and which will have some unique firearms for rent that you might not otherwise have an opportunity to shoot. We are still waiting for confirmation of the dealers that will be in attendance and will update this blog, as they confirm. While you are welcome to bring your own firearms and ammunition, it will be up to the owner of the firearm as to whether he/she will permit you to use your ammunition in his/her firearm. The FFLs will be bringing ammunition for purchase, if you need additional or if they require certain types of ammunition to be used in their weapon systems.

Also, Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun will be making food and have drinks available, at extremely reasonable prices. There will be breakfast available again this time starting around 9am! Most attendees at the last shoot couldn’t get over how the Club could make any money on the food sold!

All attendees MUST RSVP. To RSVP via facebook, please go here. If you do not have Facebook or are having difficulty, please contact our Tammy Taylor, at ttaylor@princelaw.com.

We are requiring that each person donate at least $10 to the Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun Club for their generous permission to use their range. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Shoots

SCOTUS Properly Denied Cert in Peruta v. California

While it may come as a shock to many of our viewers, I am firmly of the position that the U.S. Supreme Court properly denied certiorari in Peruta v. California, given the significant rumors of Justice Kennedy’s impending retirement this summer – the result of which will trigger the biggest battle over the confirmation of a new justice that our Country has ever seen.

But what does that have to do with Peruta?

Well, if you remember, both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were 5-4 votes, which included Justice Kennedy in the majority; however, his exact position on the Second Amendment is not known, as he joined the majority opinion in U.S. v. Castleman, which, as Justice Scalia wrote, results in everything constituting domestic violence. Accordingly, even absent his retirement, he may not be a vote that we can count on in support of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, since Heller and McDonald, we unfortunately lost the legal giant Justice Scalia. While Justice Gorsuch has now taken former Justice Scalia’s place on the Court, assuming he votes consistent with former Justice Scalia’s opinion of the Second Amendment (which seems extremely likely given the Dissent to the Denial of Certiorari to Peruta for which he joined), in the absence of Justice Kennedy, the 9th Circuit’s decision, upholding the draconian law, would likely be affirmed, since a 4-4 vote results in affirmation of the lower court’s ruling. While Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog has found precedent in such situations for re-argument once another Justice is confirmed, he has likewise found identical precedent where re-argument was not provided. Hence, we cannot count on re-argument being granted in a 4-4 tie situation.

While a tie vote affirmation is not precedential on lower courts, it would likely empower even more lower courts to ignore the dictates of the Second Amendment and Heller, McDonald, and Massachusetts v. Caetano, since the lower courts have seemingly thumbed their nose at the Court’s binding precedent. Specifically, in Heller, the Court declared that the definition of “bear arms” was to

wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of . . . being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.

Yet, lower courts have consistently upheld bans on carrying firearms in one’s pocket and permitted states to require an individual to obtain a license to carry a firearm concealed on his/her person.

Furthermore, in both Heller and McDonald the Court declared that the Second Amendment should not be analyzed in an interest-balancing approach.  Specifically, in Heller the Court declared

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.

Likewise, in McDonald, the Court declared that the Heller Court “specifically rejected” “an interest-balancing test”. Yet, almost every federal court that has analyzed the Second Amendment has analyzed it under an interest balancing approach, generally only applying intermediate scrutiny.

For these reasons, until Justice Kennedy retires and is replaced by a jurist that recognizes the Second Amendment is an inalienable right, it is best for SCOTUS to continue denying certiorari in cases involving the Second Amendment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law

Senate Passes SB 383 With Anti-Gun Provisions

Today, on third consideration, the Pennsylvania Senate passed SB 383 with the anti-gun amendments, which I previously wrote about earlier today.

It is now imperative that you contact you State Representative and demand that they vote against SB 383 or completely amend it to address the issues that I have previously written about and remove the anti-gun provisions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Anti-Gun Amendments Added to Senate Bill 383 Permitting Teachers to Carry Firearms in Pennsylvania

Although Senator White’s Office – the Prime Sponsor of SB 383 – stated on Monday that there was no longer an ability to amend SB 383 in relation to the issues I previously raised, yesterday, Philadelphia Democratic Senator Sharif Street added several anti-gun and anti-right amendments to SB 383, as initially reported by PennLive, which passed, 49-1. You can find a current version of SB 383 with the amendments here and a listing of all the Senators that voted for it here.

The amendment, inter alia, requires disclosure of all school personnel permitted access to local law enforcement and disclosure to parents that there are school personnel who are permitted access to firearms; thereby, once again, violating the confidentiality of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6111(g)(3.1) and (i) and failing to address the maintaining, access and disclosing of that information held by the police department.

Moreover, it requires any school personnel wishing to be authorized to carry a firearm to undergo a psychological examination and seemingly provide such to the school district in violation of HIPAA and for which, as I explained previously, there exists no safeguards on the maintaining, access and disclosing of those reports. This would also  constitute a violation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as it constitutes an impermissible delegation of authority to a psychologist to determine fitness.

For all of the above reasons, I am asking you to contact your State Senator and tell him/her to oppose SB 383.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized