Tag Archives: “joshua prince”

Lehigh Co District Attorney Martin’s Political Grandstanding Attempt to Limit Firearm Rights

On May 9, 2018, Lehigh County District Attorney James Martin issued his Report and Appendix on Pennsylvania State Trooper Bird’s justified use of force against an armed assailant in a Walmart parking lot. In both the Report and Appendix, it mentions on numerous occasions that the firearm utilized was previously a 80% frame – seemingly unaware that all firearms, at some point in the manufacturing process, are 80% complete. More disconcerting, DA Martin states that he will contact “Federal and State Legislators in the hope that corrective legislation may be promulgated” as this is a “a serious ‘loophole’ that should be closed by legislation at both the federal and state levels.” More specifically, he intends to call upon Federal and State Legislators to require 4473s and background checks on individuals, who wish to purchase firearm parts,  as such would “not seem to [him] to be too burdensome.”

But was an 80% frame, manufactured by the suspect – Aaron Ibrahem – and later utilized by him in this incident? Or is there far more to the story? The Report and Appendix suggest that there is far more to the story and that DA Martin is using this opportunity for political grandstanding.

In turning to the last paragraph on page 5 and onto page 6 of the Report, several statements stand out to me.

The pistol which had been removed from Ibrahem’s lap by Trooper DelGaizo was later identified as a Polymer80, model: PF940V2, caliber: .40 S&W. This particular model is sold as a frame that is 80% complete in its manufacturing. The area that holds the fire control mechanisms is completely solid and does not qualify as a firearm under the definition of a firearm according to the BATF….[it] can be purchased without a background check or ATF E-Form 4473 being completed and filed at time of purchase.

This part is legally correct. Now, here’s where it gets interesting –

An E-Trace revealed that the firearm had been sold in Texas on March 20, 2018. The investigation revealed that the buyer had only purchased the lower polymer portion (the “frame” or “receiver”) of a Glock, without the upper portion and/or any trigger parts. (emphasis added)

Hold up, if this item was not a firearm at the time of purchase, an E-Trace would not yield any result, as the item would not constitute a firearm and it would be improper for an FFL to maintain any record or perform a background check in relation to a non-firearm. Thus, as of the time of sale in March of 2018, to an unknown buyer, the gun was a firearm and not an 80% frame. (I note that the incident with Trooper Bird occurred on March 28, 2018 and I question whether the date specified should reflect March 20, 2017 or whether the firearm made it from Texas to Pennsylvania and into the possession of Ibrahem in under 8 days).

And then it gets more interesting –

The purchase had been made from Spokane Archery in Washington State. The buyer had filled out an ATF E-Form 4473, as required, for the lower receiver.

Huh? The prior sentence said the firearm was sold in Texas, now it was sold in Washington State (it may be that the use of the word “sold” in the prior portion was actually intended to mean “transferred” whereby, the money to purchase the firearm was sent to Spokane Archery in Washington State and upon receipt, the firearm was sent to the FFL in Texas for transfer – however, the mention in the following sentence of a 4473 seemingly being complete by Spokane Archery makes this interpretation questionable). Regardless, we know that a 4473 was filled out “as required” because the frame was a firearm, not an 80% frame; thus, it was a firearm at the time that the suspect obtained it – a suspect who was already prohibited under 18 U.S.C 922(g) from receiving it and the person who transferred/sold it to the suspect was prohibited from such by 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5), and (d).

Let’s see if the Appendix can shed any light on the above.

The investigation revealed that only the lower polymer portion of the Glock, without the upper and any trigger parts, was purchased from Spokane Archery in Washington State by a person from Texas. This purchase was legal because the ATF E-Form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record) had been submitted. That portion of the Glock purchased legally, is referred to as the “frame,” or the “lower receiver” of the firearm.

So once again, it confirms that the item purchased by an unidentified person, who was not the suspect, was a firearm as a 4473 had been completed and submitted. This is the first time that the word “submitted” is used in relation to the 4473 (in the Report, it only states that it was filled out) and it is important, as we now know that the background check was performed on the unidentified purchaser. However, the Appendix then declares that “It is believed that [Ibrahem] then ‘manufactured’ a firearm by obtaining the lower portion (frame/receiver) of the weapon by purchasing a so-called ‘Polymer 80″‘on the Internet.”

Huh? Both the Report and Appendix establish that Ibrahem did NOT purchase a 80% frame but rather purchased/obtained a firearm, in violation of the law. Section 922(g) specifies those individual, who are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition and there is no dispute that Ibrahem was prohibited. Further, Section 922(d) precluded the seller from selling/transferring the firearm (and potentially the ammunition) to Ibrahem. As the firearm constituted a firearm and Ibrahem and the seller lived in different states, the seller was also prohibited from selling/transferring the firearm (and potentially the ammunition) to Ibrahem, per Section 922(a)(5).

While acknowledging that the seller and Ibrahem violated Federal and State law without concern, DA Martin is now calling upon Federal and State Legislators to further restrict law-abiding individuals’ rights. If only laws existed against murder, it wouldn’t happen, right?

 

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

FICG On Behalf of FOAC Files Letter In Response To Jenks Township’s Proposed Illegal Firearm Ordinance

Today, it was reported by ExploreClarion.com that Jenks Township was considering enacting an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms in the township.

 

CI_865495-1_Page_1.jpg

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 Jenks Township moves forward with the proposal, FOAC is prepared to file a legal challenge against the Township and request the District Attorney to file criminal charges for violations of Section 6120.

If you would like to donate to support this matter, Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. would greatly appreciate donations, which can be made online through the Firm’s escrow account here – https://secure.lawpay.com/pages/civilrightsdefensefirm/trust. Simply place FOAC v. Jenks Township  in the reference box.

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.

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

With PA Representative Sims Censoring Pro-Second Amendment Comments, FICG Files Letters of Objection with House Judiciary Committee Members

Earlier today, Attorney Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut sent letters to the Chairman of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and all of its members regarding the current proceedings pertaining to gun control legislation.

They encourage you all to contact the Chairman and members of the Committee to demand further hearings with input from the citizens of the Commonwealth. For more information, see Attorney Prince’s prior blog article here.

Attorneys Prince and Kraut request all Pennsylvanians to join them on Monday April 30th at 10 AM in the rotunda of the Capitol Building in Harrisburg for the Annual Pennsylvania Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally. Attorney Prince is scheduled to speak at the event.

6 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Pennsylvania Firearm Rights in the Crosshairs – The Rights That Stand to be Infringed

Starting this week, at the direction of Chairman Ron Marisco, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee held week-long “Public Safety – gun laws and violence” hearings regarding numerous pending firearms-related bills, which seek to restrict firearm rights in Pennsylvania in every regard from outright banning all semi-automatic firearms and high capacity magazines to banning any part that “accelerates the rate of fire of semi-automatic firearm[s].” More disconcerting than Chairman Marisco’s scheduling of these hearings is the fact that seemingly in violation of Article 1, Section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, even though he acknowledges that they are “public hearings,” he specifically precluded interested parties in testifying regarding these bills and stated to Bobby Lawrence (former US Senate Candidate) that if others want a voice then let them do it through e-mails to legislators or by Letters to the Editor.

As reflected below, the General Assembly does not have the first clue about the interplay between the state and federal firearm laws or the existing firearm laws here in Pennsylvania and federally. Nor do many of the Members have any respect for the State or U.S. Constitution. It is for these reasons that testimony is absolutely necessary from interested parties.

Thus, as explained below and as a result of Chairman Marisco’s statement and preclusion of interested parties being afforded to testify, it is imperative that you not only contact your state representative and senator, but additionally contact Chairman Marisco and all other members of the House Judiciary Committee regarding your opposition to any infringement of your constitutional rights. (The contact information for the House Judiciary Members is at the bottom of this article and I would encourage everyone to FAX any respectful correspondences on these issues to your representatives and the member of the House Judiciary Committee and then call to confirm their receipt of your fax, since some Members are contending that they have not received ANY correspondences in opposition to these bills). More importantly, it is imperative that you let your voice be heard, regardless of these Members’ political affiliation, as many of this anti-Article 1, Section 21 and Second Amendment bills are being proposed by alleged Republicans)

For those interested in the transcripts and video/audio from the PA Legislative Services (PLS) in relation to these hearings (as the Committee has failed, without explanation, to post the formal transcripts – also be aware, as it doesn’t appear that the videos are compressed, it may take a while to download them):

  1. Transcript and video from hearing on Monday, April 9th, at 11 AM, Room 140 – Main Capitol;
  2. Transcript and video from hearing on Tuesday, April 10th at 10 AM, Room 140 – Main Capitol;
  3. Transcript and video from hearing on Wednesday, April 11th at 10 AM, Room 140 – Main Capitol;
  4. Transcript and video from hearing on Monday, April 16th at 10:30 AM, Room 205 – Ryan Office;
  5. Transcript and video from hearing on Tuesday, April 17th at 9:30 AM, Room 140 – Main Capitol;
  6. Transcript and video from hearing on Wednesday, April 18th at 9:00 AM, Room 205 – Ryan Office.

From the transcripts and videos, you will see that they are discussing SB 17, SB 18, SB 383, SB 501, HB 175, HB 671, HB 832, HB 870, HB 1233, HB 1400, HB 1872, HB 2060, HB 2097, HB 2109HB 2149, HB 2150, and  HB 2216.

HB 1872

House Bill 1872, sponsored by Representatives Madeleine Dean (D) and Dom Costa (D), seeks to “Ban Rapid Fire or ‘Multiburst Trigger Activators’ in Pennsylvania.” The text can be found here. This bill seeks to change 18 Pa.C.S. § 908 – Prohibited Offensive Weapons to include “possession of an accelerated trigger activator purchased or otherwise obtained by the defendant prior to the effective date of this paragraph.” It then goes on to define “accelerate trigger activator” as a “part or combination of parts designed and intended to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm to simulate the rate of fire of a machinegun”

First and foremost, the sponsors apparently are completely unaware of numerous applicable U.S. and State constitutional provisions that result in this proposal being unconstitutional. As held by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically protects military weapons, which is inclusive of machineguns. Although there is no equivalent decision under Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, the PA Constitution declares that “[t]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned,” which is then acknowledged to be an inalienable right by Article 1, Section 25, which provides that “[t]o guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.” (emphasis added).

Even if Article 1, Section 21 and the Second Amendment were not applicable, this proposal is unconstitutional under the ex post facto law provisions of Article 1, Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It would also constitute an unlawful taking, without just compensation, under Article 1, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Didn’t these Members of the General Assembly take an oath to uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions? I am pretty sure they did, as such is specifically required by Article VI, Section 3, which declares:

Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”

The oath or affirmation shall be administered to a member of the Senate or to a member of the House of Representatives in the hall of the House to which he shall have been elected.

Any person refusing to take the oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office.

What about making thousands of law-abiding individuals in Pennsylvania, overnight, into criminals, by their mere possession of these devices, without any means or opportunity to dispose of them? By the way, in case you were unaware, a violation of Section 908 is a misdemeanor of the first degree, which will result in the person being prohibited, in perpetuity, from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(g)(1) – but that’s inconsequential, because we need to do something to solve a non-existent problem, right? While the sponsors and the media would have you believe that bump stocks were utilized in the horrific Las Vegas shooting, the Preliminary Investigative Report of shooting, although listing several bump stocks as having been recovered, does not list them as having been utilized in the attack.

Setting the constitutional issues aside, the sponsors lack an engineering understanding that the cyclic rate of a firearm is determined not by how fast or slow a particular person or device can cause the firearm to cycle but rather based on the fastest speed at which the firearm can operate. As reflected in this video, Jerry Miculek can out-shoot a bump stock and is FAR more accurate. Does that mean that Jerry Miculek will be automatically imprisoned if he steps foot in Pennsylvania? What about competition triggers? Are they to be included in this?

 

SB 17

Senate Bill 17, sponsored by Wayne Fontana (D), seeks to ban, with limited exceptions, semi-automatic firearms, including HANDGUNS and shotguns, and large capacity magazines and institute a registry of semi-automatic firearms. The text can be found here. This bill would require an individual owning a semi-automatic firearm to obtain a “certificate of possession” from the Pennsylvania State Police and then an individual who is granted a certificate of possession is limited to the locations where he/she may possess the semi-automatic rifle. Better yet, the Pennsylvania State Police could deny you because of your “character and reputation,” which is not defined. Also, you will be charged a fee of $15, per firearm, every four years. Moreover, there is no grandfathering provision in relation to large capacity magazines and turns law-abiding individuals into criminals overnight. Of interesting note, since this is being offered as a result of the Parkland shooter, we now know that the Parkland shooter did NOT use large capacity magazines.

 

SB 18

Senate Bill 18, sponsored by Wayne Fontana (D), seeks to provide for “extreme risk orders,” where in ex parte hearings (i.e. in the absence of due process) an individual can be stripped of their constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms. The text can be found here. Better yet, it even provides immunity to the person seeking an extreme risk order, even if there were purposeful omissions or misstatements in the petition!

 

HB 2216

House Bill 2216, sponsored by Warren Kampf (R), seeks to ban any devices that can “accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm” and “large capacity ammunition magazines” which is defined as any magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds or 5 shotgun shells. The text can be found here. Once again, apparently Representative Kampf has no understanding of the State or Federal Constitution and would, overnight, turn law-abiding individuals into criminals, as it fails to grandfather pre-existing large capacity magazines and fails to provide any means or opportunity to dispose of them.

 

HB 2251

House Bill 2251, sponsored by Thomas Murt (R), seeks to, inter alia, define “ammunition,” “gun ranges” and  “other weapons,” prohibit prohibited person from possessing or manufacturing ammunition (even though 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) already prohibits such), then requires background checks on the purchase of all ammunition – including from a gun range (which may not have an FFL and would therefore be precluded from performing a background check) – precludes any purchase of ammunition that does not occur face-to-face and precludes individuals from purchasing ammunition in another state and then bringing it into Pennsylvania, without it going through an FFL. The text can be found here.

 

HB 1233

House Bill 1233, sponsored by Thomas Murt (R), seeks to monumentally revise Pennsylvania’s Mental Health and Procedures Act, permitting far more individuals to constitute “qualified professionals,” makes it much easier for an individual to be committed under Sections 302 and 303, and fails to address the unconstitutionality of Section 302 (i.e. as held by Judge Kim Gibson of the Federal District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania, a Section 302 commitment lacks any form of due process). The text can be found here.

 

HB 1400 and HB 2249

House Bill 1400, sponsored by James Santora (R), and House Bill 2249, sponsored by Thomas Murt (R), seeks to preclude private party sales and references them, erroneously, as a “gun show loophole.” The text can be found here for HB 1400 and here for HB 2249. While it putatively provides an exception, where the individual purchased a firearm from the same dealer within 48 hours, the language requires the person to produce a copy of a record/application of sale form, which is only utilized when the individual purchases a firearm under the definition provided by Section 6102 (i.e. generally speaking, a handgun). Thus, if an individual purchased a rifle from the same dealer, the exception would not apply, as the purchaser would be unable to produce a record/application of sale form.

 

HB 832

House Bill 832, sponsored by Madeleine Dean (D), seeks to re-victimize those who have had a firearm stolen, by criminalizing their failure to report, within 72 hours, their victimization. The text can be found here. In what other context would anyone ever consider criminalizing the failure of a victim of crime to report that crime?

 

HB 2109

House Bill 2109, sponsored by Stephen McCarter (D), seeks to permit firearm restraining orders, which permits the assessment of fees and costs against the subject of an issue firearm restraining order, as well as, ex parte orders, in violation of all tenants of due process. The 52 pages of text can be found here.

 

HB 2252

House Bill 2252, sponsored by Thomas Murt (R), seeks to duplicate the existing mental prohibition (see 18 U.S.C. 924(g)(4) and 18 PA.C.S. 6105(c)(4)) for those who are involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment. The text can be found here.

 

HB 2097

House Bill 2097, sponsored by Jason Dawkins (D), seeks to prohibit anyone who is merely arrested for or charged with a putative domestic violence offense, in the absence of due process, from possessing and purchasing firearms. The text can be found here. As everyone is aware, an individual who is subject to a Protection From Abuse Order or is convicted of a domestic violence offense is already prohibited under state and federal law (see, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a.1)(2), (c)(6), (c)(9); 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8), (9)) Worse yet, reflecting the absence of any consideration in the drafting of this bill, it provides that any such prohibition would apply, for example, in a situation where one criminally trespasses on the property of or steals money or other object from an intimate partner.

 

SB 501 and HB 2060

House Bill 2060, sponsored by Representative Marguerite Quinn (R), and Senate Bill 501, sponsored by Senator Thomas Killon (R), are another solution in search of a problem, seeks to require an individual who is prohibited as a result of a domestic violence conviction or Protection from Abuse Order to turn in his/her firearms and ammunition, even though 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8) already requires such. The text can be found here for HB 2060 and here for SB 501. Moreover, the requirement to turn over one’s firearms would be restricted to either a law enforcement department or a dealer, even though the current law additionally provides for third-party safekeeping permits and CeaseFirePA has been unable to show a single occasion where an individual gained access to firearms from a third-party safekeeper. Oh yeah, they also fail to mention that if an individual who holds a safekeeping permit permits access to the firearms by the prohibited person, it is already a misdemeanor of the first degree, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a.1)(5); whereby, once again, under 18 U.S.C. § 921(g)(1), the individual will be barred, in perpetuity, from possessing and purchasing firearms and ammunition.

For the icing on the cake, it also provides that any firearm turned into the police would be considered “abandoned” after a year. I especially like the absurdity of the search of the “database of firearm sales,” when 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4 specifically prohibits the maintenance of any registry of firearms and when the sales database is only related to handguns. Better yet, it permits, in violation of due process and the takings provisions, for the entity that has possession of the firearm(s) to sell them and retain the proceeds.

 

HB 870 and SB 383

House Bill 870, sponsored by Representative Cris Dush (R), and Senate Bill 383, sponsored by Senator Donald White, seeks to permit armed school personnel (which I am in favor of) but both fail to address the issues I previously raised here and here to SB 383. The text can be found here for HB 870 and here for SB 383. I have written an extensive amendment for SB 383 or HB 870, which would address all of the relevant concerns, and am waiting for it to be offered.

 

As emails can be easily deleted without the recipient reviewing them and numerous Members have stated that they have not received any correspondences in opposition to these bills, I am imploring you to FAX any 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.

16 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

FOIA Filed with ATF over Bump Stock Determinations

Today, Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), on behalf of Firearms Policy Foundation (“FPF”), filed a, expedited Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with ATF requesting copies of all prior determinations issued by ATF regarding the lawfulness of bump stocks. As the comment period only permits comments to be submitted until June 27, 2018 and in the absence of disclosure of these documents, the public would be denied meaningful opportunity to respond, the FOIA request additionally requests expedited review and processing.

We will post ATF’s response when it is received. In the meanwhile, if you wish to stay apprised of issues relating to ATF attempting to ban bump stocks, please follow Americans Opposed to ATF 2017R-22 and after following, select “See First” under the Following tab so you can be assured to see all of the posts and updates!


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.

Leave a comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Violating Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act by Denying Sales of Firearms and Ammunition to Those Under 21 Years of Age?

Recently, numerous companies, including Dicks, Walmart, and even Pennsylvania-based Dunkelberger’s Sports Outfitters, started refusing to sell rifles and shotguns to individuals between the ages of 18 and 21, seemingly in violation of Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act.

Before addressing PA’s Human Relations Act, let’s review Pennsylvania’s constitutional provisions. First and foremost, Article 1, Section 1 – Inherent rights of mankind – provides:

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Article 1, Section 21 – Right to bear arms – provides:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

More importantly and frequently overlooked, Article 1, Section 25 – Reservation of powers in people – provides:

To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Accordingly, the rights acknowledged by Article 1, Sections 1 through 24, including the right to self defense, the ability to acquire property and the right to bear arms, are inalienable as acknowledged by the Constitution.

In turning to PA’s Human Relations Act, the Findings in Section 952 provide, inter alia,

The practice or policy of discrimination against individuals or groups by reason of their race, color, familial status, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, handicap or disability, … is a matter of concern of the Commonwealth. Such discrimination foments domestic strife and unrest, threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, and undermines the foundations of a free democratic state.

Section 953 then goes on to provide, inter alia, that:

The opportunity for an individual … to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any public accommodation … without discrimination because of race, color, familial status, religious creed, ancestry, handicap or disability, age, sex, national origin, … is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right which shall be enforceable as set forth in this act.

For those wondering what all is included as a public accommodation, it includes, in addition to a plethora of other entities, “retail stores and establishments.

Anyone aggrieved under the PA Human Relations Act can file a complaint for discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

Hopefully, these retailers will reconsider their age-based policies denying individuals their inalienable rights to bear arms and to defend themselves.

If you or someone you know has been denied your right to keep and bear arms, 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.

4 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

President Trump and Vice President Pence to Lose Second Amendment Rights

Yesterday, President Trump stated that “[i]t takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early. Take the guns first, go through due process second” seemingly without consideration for what he was proposing or the impact on his and Vice President Pence’s Second Amendment rights.

What am I talking about?

Well, someone needs to be living under a rock to have missed all the unsubstantiated allegations regarding the President’s mental health during his candidacy and presidency. In fact, there is even a book by Brandy X Lee – The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President – in which these putative experts contend that President Trump suffers from varying and differing mental health conditions. More recently, Joy Behar claimed that Vice President Pence was mentally ill, because of his religious convictions in speaking with Jesus.

But what does this have to do with the President’s comment?

Well, he seemingly ignores the fact that absent due process, both his and Vice President Pence’s Second Amendment rights could be stripped, absent even their knowledge or opportunity to be heard, because of someone’s – potentially vindictive and even baseless – views or beliefs. See, that is what due process protects against – or at least is suppose to protect against. While we can argue about the level of due process and whether the courts place appropriate consideration on the evidence before depriving someone of a constitutional right, the right to be heard against allegations is a fundamental tenet of our Founding Constitutional Agreement.

As our viewers know, I recently litigated a case in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, where Judge Kim Gibson found that a Section 302 evaluation under the Pennsylvania Mental Health and Procedures Act was not sufficient to trigger a federal prohibition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), due to the lack of due process provided the individual. There, like what is seemingly being proposed by the President, the Government contended that an individual was stripped of his right to Keep and Bear Arms – an inalienable right that is acknowledged by the Constitution – as a result of a doctor merely signing a form, in the absence of the individual being provided any of the tenets of due process, including having an opportunity to confront those speaking against him/her. More specifically, the individual is not (1) provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses nor have a witness testify on his/her behalf; (2) provided an opportunity to challenge evidence nor submit evidence in support of his/her position; (3) provided counsel; or (4) provided a neutral arbiter, since the doctor is paid by the hospital and there are, unfortunately, financial incentives for a hospital to keep an individual for further evaluation.

Could you imagine the outrage if there was a proposal that would permit someone, even the President, to be stripped of his/her First Amendment rights, in the absence of due process, because someone believed that the person suffered from a mental illness, regardless of how baselessness of the claim? Speaking of which, why do we permit a person who has been involuntarily committed to be a reporter? And with all the talk about raising the age to 21 to purchase any firearm, why aren’t we talking about equal application of the law to all constitutional provisions? If its okay to restrict an individual’s constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms, why aren’t we also restricting his/her First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, until the person is 21? That’s right, such would be unconstitutional and as Justice Thomas recently stated in his dissent to the denial of certiorari in Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California

it seems, rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in the text. Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance.

Because I still believe that the Second Amendment cannot be “singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment,” I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari. (citations omitted)

Given the constitutional issues involved and the likelihood for abuse, Mr. President, I respectfully implore you to reconsider your remarks and thereafter, come out in support of all of our constitutionally acknowledged rights, including opposing any proposal, which would permit any constitutional right to be stripped from an individual in the absence of due process.

4 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law