Tag Archives: “joshua prince”

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

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

Third Circuit Holds That Recording Police In Public Is Protected By The First Amendment

Today, in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, et al., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined five other circuit courts in holding that the 1st Amendment protects the public recording of police officers.

As stated in the decision, the background is somewhat simplistic – Mr. Field and a Mrs. Geraci attempted to record “Philadelphia police officers carrying out officia duties in public and were retaliated against even though the Philadelphia Police Departments official policies recognized that ‘[p]rivate individuals have a First Amendment right to observe and record police officers engage in the public discharge of their duties’.”

In discussing the First Amendment, the court explained that

The First Amendment protects the public’s right of access to information about their officials’ public activities. It “goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” Access to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”

The court therefore went on to hold

Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information.

More interestingly, the court properly noted that

Civilian video also fills the gaps created when police choose not to record video or withhold their footage from the public.

And that

the proliferation of bystander videos has “spurred action at all levels of government to address police misconduct and to protect civil rights.”

However, the court cautioned that it was not holding that all recording is protected or desirable. Specifically, the court declared that

[I]t is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Unfortunately, because the court found that one’s First Amendment protections in recording the police had not been sufficiently established at the time of the officers conduct, it granted them qualified immunity. However, any officers that violate someone’s right to record the police in public, due to the decision, will no longer be able to claim qualified immunity, because now it has been established.

If you or anyone you know has been subjected to criminal charging, retaliation or harassment as a result of recording the police in public, contact us to discuss YOUR rights.

Leave a comment

Filed under Constitutional Law, Uncategorized

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