Tag Archives: Firearms Law

4hr Firearms Law Seminar – April 15, 2017 with Rockwell Tactical!

On April 15, 2017, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince, Attorney Eric Winter and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) in conjunction with Rockwell Tactical, will offer a four (4) hour seminar on state and federal firearms law at the DoubleTree Resort at 2400 Willow Street Pike, Lancaster, PA 17602.

The cost is $20 and you should register early, as the classes sell out fast! To register or to find out further information, check out Rockwell Tactical’s registration page.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact Rockwell Tactical at info@rockwelltactical.com or 717-405-2999.

Leave a comment

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

Second Seminar: What Happens After You Use Your Firearm In PA

Due to overwhelming demand, as the first seminar on January 7, 2017, from 10-11:30 sold out, we have added a second, identical, seminar from 12-1:30.

For those unaware of the seminar, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with former JAG E. Allen Chandler of Firearms Legal Protection and King Shooters Supply, will provide an hour and a half seminar on what happens after you use your firearm in Pennsylvania. For only $10, you will be provided information on the legal consequences of a violent encounter and how to avoid common mistakes that can cost you money, and even your freedom, if you should become involved in a self-defense situation.

All attendees must per-register, and if there is extensive demand, we may schedule another seminar later in the day. To register, simply visit King Shooter Supply’s website.

Brought to you by your PA Firearms Lawyer® and your PA Gun Attorney® and home of the Armor Piercing Arguments®.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Attorney Adam Kraut to Speak at Rockwell Tactical’s Every Day Carry Seminar Saturday July 2

Attorney Adam Kraut will be attending Rockwell Tactical Group’s Every Day Carry Seminar on Saturday July 2 at the Double Tree Resort in Lancaster, PA to speak about firearms law related issues.


The Rockwell 2016 Every Day Carry Conference will bring together subject matter experts on all aspects of everyday carry. Now, more than ever, with the state of today’s world, you alone are responsible for your own safety and that of your loved ones. Presenters will be giving presentations on the following EDC topics: Mindset, Firearms, Items for EDC, What NOT to Carry, Medical, Vehicle, PA specific law, Women’s EDC, EDC with children, Knives, etc.

The day will finish with a panel discussion, including answering questions from attendees.

Presenters include:

Event Registration


Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Pennsylvania Firearms Law Seminar – August 6, 2016 – All Donations Go To The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund!

On August 6, 2016, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince, Attorney Eric Winter and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with King Shooters Supply, will offer a four (4) hour seminar from 10am to 2pm on state and federal firearms law at their store located at  346 E Church Rd, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.

The cost is $10 and all proceeds will go to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (CRDF). The NRA CRDF provides and ensures legal and financial assistance to selected individuals and organizations defending their right to keep and bear arms. The also sponsor legal research and education on a wide variety of gun-related issues, including the meaning of the Second Amendment and nature of the right to keep and bear arms provision in state constitutions. Prince Law Offices has been the recipient of previous litigation funding from them. For those who are unable to attend or desire to further support the NRA CRDF, please consider making a donation to the NRA CRDF on their website.

Please make sure to register early, as last time it sold out fast. You can find out further information on King Shooters Supply’s website.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact King Shooters Supply at 610-491-9901 .

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, News & Events

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case

Today attorney Tom Odom of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will file with the U.S. Supreme Court a brief on behalf of Firearms Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”) and Firearms Industry Consulting Group (“FICG”), in support of the request of Tab Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Bonidy is a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a permit to carry a firearm who lives in rural Colorado.  Like millions of other Americans, he obtained such a permit so that he might be prepared to defend himself outside of his home.  When the U.S. Postal Service advised Bonidy that he would be subject to prosecution simply for momentarily storing his firearm in the trunk of his vehicle in an unsecured parking lot made available for postal patrons, Bonidy sought a determination that applying the postal regulation to him under such circumstances would violate the Second Amendment.

The area where Bonidy lives is sufficiently rural that there is no home delivery of mail, the lobby of the post office is open to the public at all times so that individuals may retrieve mail from their post office boxes, and the post office does not maintain any regular security employees.  Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit stated that both the lobby and the unsecured parking lot where Bonidy proposed to lock the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle constituted “secure places” beyond the scope of the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

In the belief that Bonidy’s case presents a superior opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to make clear that the Second Amendment is not exclusively limited to self-defense within one’s own home, FICG prepared the brief in support of Bonidy’s petition for certiorari on a pro bono basis.  FOAC joined in the effort and covered the cost of the printing of the briefs.

The decision below was reported as Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015).  The U.S. Supreme Court docket number is 15-746.  Here is a link to the brief filed with the court.

UPDATE: On behalf of the U.S. Postal Service the Solicitor General (“SG”) requested and was granted additional time to file a brief in opposition to U.S. Supreme Court review. While the SG’s position is not surprising, the fact that the SG will file a brief at this stage indicates concern that the case could represent one of the 3% or so requests for review that the Court grants.


Filed under Constitutional Law, Firearms Law

Very Pro-2nd Amendment Appropriations Bill Under Attack!

As many of our viewers are aware, in June, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2578, which provided a number of pro-2nd Amendment provisions, including funding for federal firearms relief determinations under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), which has not been available since 1992, and a prohibition on ATF utilizing any of the funding for promulgating a rule requiring CLEO signature requirements.

Specifically, Amendment 302 provided “that such funds appropriated for BATF shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under United States Code”

Additionally, Amendment 320 provided ATF was prohibited from “the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act.”

H.R. 2578, with these Amendments, was approved by the House of Representatives on June 3, 2015 with a vote of 242 yeas  to 183 nays. You can find out how each Representative voted, here.

It was then sent to the Senate, where Senator Shelby reported it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee with it being substituted for what appears to be the Senate’s Appropriation’s Bill S. 2131. Unfortunately, S. 2131 does not include Amendment 302 or 320.

Accordingly, it is imperative that you contact your Senators and inform them that you want them either to approve H.R. 2578 as sent to the Senate by the House or you want them to include Amendments 302 and 320 in their version of the 2016 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. This is extremely important as hundreds of thousands of people are affected by ATF’s inability to perform federal firearms relief determinations and ATF’s ATf-41P rulemaking.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

ATF-41P Update

Recently, ATF-41P’s final action date was changed from December 2015 to January 2016, prompting a lot of speculation and concern, especially in light of President Obama’s announcement of 2,224 new proposed rules, which he hopes to implement prior to his departure.

As many of our viewers are aware, Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., spearheaded the opposition to ATF-41P, submitting a 500+ page initial comment, a 60+ page supplemental comment, starting the Facebook Group – Americans Opposed to ATF-41P and promoting the NFA Day of Reckoning. As we reported in August from the Annual Import/Export conference, ATF added three additional people to review the comments submitted regarding ATF-41P but had no idea on an expected completion date.

So, what does the date change signify? Quite honestly, not a lot other than 1. ATF does not believe that it will be prepared to move forward with a final rule in December 2015 and 2. that it also doesn’t anticipate that it will take it will take six months or longer, until it will be prepared to move forward with a final rule. In the past, ATF was extending the final action date in 6 month increments. This is the first, sub-six month increment, signifying that it is nearing the end of its review of the 9500+ comments and has likely started drafting a final proposed rule, wherein it is legally required to respond to all the issues raised in the comments, even an issue that was only raised by one commentor.

In reality, the final action date means little, as ATF could move forward with a final rule prior to the end of this year or ATF could once again delay the final action date; however, if it is delayed further, it will likely be delayed in one month increments.

As a result of the update to the final action date, which we posted on the FICG and Americans Opposed to ATF-41p Facebook pages, a lot of people have raised concern and confusion over what this means, especially in relation to any future transfers. Unfortunately, without knowing what the final rule will say, it is difficult to advise on the uncertainty. However, here is what we do know:

  1. The Agency Contact, Brenda Friend Esq., previously told Attorney Merting that the rule would not be retroactive and would only apply to new transactions.
  2. During the 12th Annual Import/Export Conference, I asked ATF how pending transfers would be treated, if a new rule was implemented. ATF responded that any new regulation would only apply to applications submitted after the effective date of the regulation. Attorney Merting confirmed that this was consistent with what Attorney Friend told him.

Hence, all information currently suggests that if your application is pending at the time any new regulation goes into effect, your application will be grandfathered, as it complied with the regulations, when it was submitted. Obviously, everyone will want to know what constitutes pending (e.g. mailing, receipt or cashing of one’s check). Again, unfortunately, we don’t know; however, there are pretty good arguments that it should be triggered upon ATF’s receipt. For this reason, if you’re planning to file a Form 1, you may want to do such electronically through the eForms system and as soon as possible.

Also, a lot of people are asking whether the execution of your trust, LLC or other fictitious entity plays any role in the determination. The answer, generally speaking, is no. The applicability of any new regulation will hinge on the date of submission (and what constitutes pending) of a new application. Hence, the fact that you’ve previously submitted applications utilizing your trust or other fictitious entity is of no relevance. (Also, some people believe that they can or are required to file their trust with ATF in advance of filing an application. This is incorrect as there is no mechanism (and it would serve no purpose) to file a copy of one’s trust or other fictitious entity with ATF prior to submission of a Form 1 or Form 4).

Hence, based on the information currently available, if you have not yet formed your trust or other fictitious entity, it will likely be in your best interest to form that entity now and submit your application(s), as it appears that any application submitted prior to the effective date of the regulation will be grandfathered. I have a number of clients that have formed their trusts and submitted their applications for all the NFA toys they could ever want, so that even if ATF-41P is implemented, it will likely have no applicability to them.

Nevertheless, we are asking everyone to contact their U.S. Senator and demand that they approve, without amendment, H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which includes a provision prohibiting the ATF from utilizing any of the appropriated money for implementing a rule requiring a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature(e.g. ATF-41P) and additionally includes a provision providing for the funding of federal firearms relief, which has not been available since 1992.

If some form of final rule is promulgated from ATF-41P, funding will need to be raised to fight its implementation. We have detailed a number of ATF’s violations in this rulemaking in our original and supplemental comments, and in a number of articles, including whether ATF violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act, whether ATF unlawfully disqualified comments and ATF disqualified 1,000+ comments, and whether ATF provided an adequate comment period.

I hope you will consider supporting us in fighting ATF, if any final regulation is implemented, as only together can we hold ATF accountable.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Gun Trusts