Tag Archives: “joshua prince”

EXTREMELY CRITICAL ALERT: Gun Control Tidal Wave About to Wreak Havoc on Pennsylvania Gun Owners

Guest Author Kim Stolfer of Firearm Owners Against Crime

The gun control insanity that has gripped much of our nation has finally raised its’ ugly head here in PA. Next week (9/24-9/25) the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, spurred on by Speaker of the House Rep. Turzai, is slated to consider two bills that were tabled in June – HB 2060 & HB 2227.

These are both an affront to our Constitution at the state and federal level. What’s worse is that Republican Leadership KNOWS this just as they know both expand the power of government at the expense of the Due Process rights of the accused with HB 2227 creating an entirely ‘new’ section of law involving suspension of ‘Due Process’.

Over the summer, FOAC has worked diligently to examine both bills with some great attorneys and have attempted to convey this to other groups, gun owners and PA House members. On Thursday (the 20th of Sept.) we were told that a September Surprise (meaning gun owners were being stabbed in the back) was coming and that both HB 2060 & HB 2227 would see floor action on Sept. 24th & 25th respectively.

We have done EVERYTHING we can to stop this freight train but are told that UNLESS YOU (gun owners) speak out and DEMAND leadership pull these bills they WILL PASS. We as a group (gun owners) have been silent TOO DAMN LONG!! NOW we are faced with House Leadership and SE Republicans and a ‘Host’ of anti-gun Democrats who think they can ignore citizens’ rights along with the reality of all the major gun groups rallying around these two gun bills that will severely damage the short and long term rights of all citizens to be treated fairly in the halls of justice.

Below are just a FEW examples of the Flaws and Traps in these bills:
1. IF a PFA is issued on you and you don’t turn in ALL your firearms, other weapons ‘and’ ammunition within 24 hours you will go directly to jail for 6 months (HB 2060)
2. Completely ELIMINATES your ability to go to court and use the 3rd Party process to ‘legally’ surrender your firearms to a ‘friend or family’ member to keep them for you until the PFA is terminated (HB 2060)
3. Forces you to pay a storage fee on EACH gun kept at a gun dealer or ‘commercial armory’ for up to FIVE years (HB 2060)
4. Buy a gun, get reported and have your gun seized without ‘due process’ THEN to challenge this you MUST spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to go to court and ‘prove’ your innocence (HB 2227)
5. Lose your rights by being reported by even decades old acquaintances and your property seized ‘without due process’ and forced to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney to go to court and ‘prove’ your innocence (HB 2227)

See also Attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut’s Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on these issues, as well!

The Talking Points on this legislation can be found below:
HB 2227 – https://foac-pac.org/uploads/talking_points/A-HB-2227-Extreme_Risk_Protection_Orders-FOAC-Review.pdf
HB 2060 – https://foac-pac.org/uploads/talking_points/A-HB-2060_pn3820-FOAC_Language_Problems-Final.pdf

I am going to close with the fact that this legislation is an Existential Threat to our rights and is a TURNING POINT for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We NEED and MUST HAVE your calls, e-mails and ‘presence’ in Harrisburg on Monday and Tuesday!

The straight forward message YOU MUST TELL PA HOUSE MEMBERS is to OPPOSE both bills! No Compromise, no Deals, no Amending either one as their core structure is irredeemably flawed.

Go HERE to find the contact information for EVERY PA HOUSE MEMBER: https://foac-pac.org/PA-Legislator-Info and to find House Committee members you can go here: https://foac-pac.org/PA-House-Committees – we’ve given you the tools so now this is a no ‘excuses’ moment! The apathy of gun owners has put ALL OF US in this predicament and we are now faced with a put up or shut up moment! We have done all we can to stop these bills and NOW it is up to you!!

Yours in Freedom,
Kim Stolfer, President
FOAC

11 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Undetectable Firearms and 3D Printing

Special Guest Author – Rick Vasquez of Rick Vasquez Firearms LLC and

former ATF Acting Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch

If you had zero knowledge of firearms as many talking heads on the media display, you might believe there is a new phenomenon called 3D printing of guns. Additionally, you may believe polymer firearms were recently designed, and thirdly, you would likely have no idea what the Undetectable Firearm Act is. With this lack of knowledge, you may spew disinformation about how modern firearms are undetectable and easily bypass all security elements.

Polymer firearms have been around several years. The first successful firearm with a polymer receiver was the H&K VP70 pistol. This pistol was introduced circa 1970. Then, of course, the Glock which took polymer firearms to a new height was introduced circa 1980-1982 ( https://eu.glock.com/en/explore-glock/glock-history). After this date, the use of polymers in firearm receivers has become common place.

During the 1980’s, the hysteria on plastic guns played out in the media exactly as it is today. There was hysteria over the ability of a polymer firearm to pass through a metal detector. In 1986, there was a supposed incident at the Atlanta Airport in which a Glock passed the screening, and it created media hysteria. It was later discovered that the screening machine was not properly being used, but why waste a good story?

The media began covering plastic and undetectable guns that could not be discovered with airport equipment. I have provided a few links to stories from the 1980s on undetectable firearms. (Footnote 1) Of course, a good lawmaker could not let misinformation go without passing an anti-gun law. Because of the issue created by the media, the Undetectable Firearm Act was passed in 1988. (Footnote 2)  Imagine if this law had made plastic firearms unlawful, what the historical impact would have been to our military and law enforcement?

But what can Congress do to alleviate a law they proposed impacting manufacturers in heavy democrat districts in 1988? If the law prohibits polymer firearms, manufacturers like Glock and S&W would be out of business. This is easy! Congress changes the meaning of a firearm receiver in the new statute. In the Gun Control Act, Title 18 U.S.C. section 921 (a)(3) firearm is defined as (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device… Such term do not include an antique firearm.

The undetectable statute is listed in its’ entirety below but for comparison to the definition of a firearm receiver already in the Gun Control Act, the pertinent parts are here: Title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922 (p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm–

(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as

detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or

(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.

(2) For purposes of this subsection –

(A) the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(B) the term “major component” means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and …

In the Gun Control Act, the firearm frame is all of the following: the housing, the registered part, the part that must be serialized, and the part a background check must be conducted on for a lawful transfer. Under the Undetectable Firearm Act the receiver as defined in the GCA is not restricted to be made of plastic or polymer or any non-metallic substance. The Undetectable Firearms Act was written to only prohibit the ability of a slide or barrel to be made that does not have the same detectability as the “security exemplar.”

Recently Government experts have been informing the media that a firearm must have the same amount of metal as a security exemplar made of 3.7 ounces of PH 17- 4 stainless steel. This is incorrect, the law does not require that the slide or barrel possess at least 3.7 ounces of PH17-4 stainless steel, the law requires the handgun must be as detectable under the equipment used in 1988, as the security exemplar. This is the misinformation that is being passed through the media. Whether they are getting the information through lawmakers or law enforcement bureaus, the research is not being conducted.

This watered-down version of the law was passed to protect manufacturers in heavy democrat voting districts and then appear that they are protecting citizens against terrorist. In 1988 and today, polymer firearms are made with metal slides and barrels. These polymer receivers do not have 3.7 ounces of PF 17-4 stainless or other metal in the “receiver” that is regulated in section 921(a)(3).

 

3D Misunderstanding:

Of course, once Cody Wilson made the Liberator pistol using a 3d printer and plastic, the antigun hysteria has reawakened. Numerous government agencies bought 3D printers and made a Liberator pistol with a file that was uploaded to the internet by Cody Wilson.

Then they did their own testing. The testing shows that the plastic barrel may withstand one or a few rounds of .380 caliber ammunition.3 Numerous other agencies made AR15 lower receivers and also tested them. With affordable and available 3D printing, the AR 15 receiver is a more viable firearm to make using a 3D printer. The difference in the AR receiver is that the receiver is not the part of the firearm that accepts the chamber pressure. The chamber pressure is captured in the steel barrel in the upper assembly. Of course, there are more expensive aluminum and steel 3D printers available, but the hobbyists are not going to purchase these to make a firearm. These versions of 3D printers will eventually be cost effective as technology advances.

Remember, the Liberator is a one-shot pistol that must be disassembled to be reloaded. The World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists using boxcutters. Does the technology at the airport have the capability to pick up boxcutters?

The report prepared by a law enforcement agency on the Liberator informed Cody Wilson that if he made the Liberator pistol, he must install a 3.7 ounce piece of metal into the receiver. The following instruction was given:

The steel block recommendation reads as follows:

“Once the frame is finished, epoxy a 1.19×1.19×0.99″ block of steel in the 1.2×1.2×1.0″ hole in front of the trigger guard. Add the bottom cover over the metal if you don’t want it to show.

Once the epoxy has dried [sic], the steel is no longer removable, and is an integral part of the frame. Now your gun has 6 ounces of steel and is thus considered a ‘detectable’ firearm.” This is statutorily incorrect as 922(p) does not consider the firearm receiver the receiver. It considers the barrel and slide assembly the detectable portions. Additionally, this block of steel is not in the shape of a security exemplar and would not give off the satisfactory image required by the statute.

Cody Wilson should have been properly informed that the Liberator, having a smooth bore, is an “any other weapon” (AOW) under the National Firearms Act. If he were a licensed manufacturer of firearms and had paid the special occupational tax to make NFA weapons, he could properly register the Liberator as an “AOW”. Regardless of the registration, the barrel assembly must comply with 922(p) and have as much detectability as a 3.7-ounce 17-4 PH stainless steel security exemplar.

Since the invention of plastic firearms, there have been other designs of firearm receivers that could create an undetectable concern. Firearms manufacturers are currently making an internal metal chassis that is considered the firearm, and the polymer grip is only a housing. The following link shows a 80% pistol chassis for a Sig pistol for sale. https://www.1776supplyco.com/product/80-p320-pistol-frame/. The chassis, being the receiver, does not weigh 3.5 ounces nor will it show the same resonance as the security exemplar. Another example of a firearm that can be made with simple tools and with the receiver not being made of metal is the after-market Glock 80% receiver. https://www.glockstore.com/Spectre-Polymer80-Compact-Textured. These firearms are more available and easier to make than a 3D printed Liberator.

The real issue is the fact that our lawmakers and senior law enforcement heads do not know the subject or the laws that they pass. When asked what they are doing to fix a problem that does not exist, they create media hysteria by commenting with bizarre explanations.

Technology is advancing daily. Don’t view technology changing in a few years or even months. Think of it changing in a matter of days. The technology being used by the firearms industry is very critical to all aspects of its industry. All firearms built or provided for our military are developed by private firearms manufacturers. Our military and law enforcement do not have a firearm making capability. Therefore, firearms manufacturers, in an effort to sell their product to our military, invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing technology that benefits all sectors of U.S. manufacturing.

3D printing is a perfect example of advancing technology that was not being used to it’s potential in the manufacturing industry. Until Cody Wilson built the Liberator pistol, very few people even knew what 3D printing was or that the technology existed. Many sectors of all industry and manufacturing are now using 3D printing technology for development of different products. The cost of rapid prototyping and making new designs is decreasing rapidly.

Modern manufacturing is moving forward with new technologies and instead of trying to impede the progress by our lawmakers and law enforcement, people need to be looking for methods of detection. In 2003, I visited the Transportation Safety Administration Technology Center in Atlantic City, NJ. I met with senior personnel and discussed the types of technology that could detect supposed undetectable firearms and other undetectable items. At the time, the magnetometer that ATF owned for testing was so outdated, it could not be repaired and had not been used in several years.

In 2003, I received a lot of information regarding detection equipment and a lot of information regarding magnetometers. All of this was shared with management. Magnetometers that were in use by TSA in 2003 were technologically superior to the one that was used at the same time by FTB.   What technology is available in 2018? Previous magnetometers, as the model that FTB owned, were required to be able to detect a set of 3 specific weapons. The equipment that TSA had was sensitive enough to detect all polymer firearms, polymer knives and other weapons. Additionally, current magnetometers are calibrated on a daily basis.

Instead of fighting technology, embrace it. Use technology to defend against all threats and use the best detecting machines at the airport. A razor-sharp ceramic knife is a far superior and deadly weapon than a one or two-shot firearm that must be disassembled to be reloaded. If our airports do not have the proper equipment to detect these types of items, then our law makers should be fired. In closing, just imagine the historical impact on our law enforcement and military if our law makers had outlawed the use of plastic in the manufacturing of firearms.

 

Rick Vasquez

Former Assistant Chief/Acting Chief

ATF Firearms Technology Branch Current

Firearms Industry Advisor

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-26/news/mn-1594_1_plastic-gun https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/05/15/the-deadly-truth-about-plastic- guns/d5d14631-ed41-4fb4-bf8c-63098269cabc/?utm_term=.1ad13948a40e.

2 https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/4445/all-info

3 https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/

Attachment:

Title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922 (p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm –

(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or

(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.

(2) For purposes of this subsection –

(A) the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(B) the term “major component” means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and

(C) the term “Security Exemplar” means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Secretary, that is –

(i)constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun; and

(ii) suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors:

Provided, however, That at the close of such 12-month period, and at appropriate times thereafter the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to permit the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms previously prohibited under this subparagraph that are as detectable as a “Security Exemplar” which contains 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel, in a shape resembling a handgun, or such lesser amount as is detectable in view of advances in state-of-the-art developments in weapons detection technology.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

FICG/Prince Law Offices, P.C.’s Bi-Annual Machinegun Shoot – October 20, 2018!

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 20, 2018, 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.

Update 1: Tri-State Tactical will be in attendance with an Mp5, Mp5k, Mp5sd
Ak, M16, Ar15 7” Hera cqr auto, Uzi, Pps-50 .22, Pps-43c, Ar9, FAL, M1a carbine and
Hk Ump.

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, 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, News & Events

Massive Comment Filed in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Bump-Stock-Devices – ATF – 2017R-22

Firearms Industry Consulting Group (“FICG”), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., is honored to announce that Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut drafted and filed a 923 page Comment in Opposition to ATF’s proposed rulemaking on bump-stock-devices (docket no. ATF 2017R-22 ) on behalf of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and Firearms Policy Foundation (“FPF”). A copy of FPC/FPF’s Press Release can be found here and copies of the massive Comment in Opposition and 35 Exhibits can be found here.

Humorously, it appears that FICG broke the eRulemaking Portal, as ATF was unable to upload all exhibits (i.e. videos) and had to break the exhibits up over two separate comment IDs:

FPC Comment

It bears substantial mentioning that Patton Media and Consulting and former Acting Director of the Firearms Technology Branch and Senior Analyst Richard (“Rick”) Vasquez of Rick Vasquez Firearms LLC were instrumental in providing irrefutable evidence that ATF has purposely misled the public on the function of bump-stock-devices. While this would undermine the efforts of an administrative agency with a sterling reputation for candor, as reflected in the Comment, ATF has a well-documented record of “spinning” facts and engaging in outright deception of the courts, Congress, and the public. Thus, it is imperative that the current Administration appoint a director to ATF, who has a stellar reputation for candor, honesty and upholding the law as written, so that ATF’s extremely tarnished reputation might be rehabilitated.

If you or your company wish to file a comment in support or opposition to a notice of proposed rulemaking by a federal administrative agency, 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.

 

6 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

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?

 

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.

7 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized