Tag Archives: Second Amendment

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.



Filed under Firearms Law

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in ANOTHER Second Amendment Case


Once again the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in another Second Amendment Case. Silvester, et al. v. Becerra was an appeal from the 9th Circuit challenging California’s 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers. In particular, the petition for certiorari raised the issue of whether the 9th Circuit “improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions.” (SCOTUS Blog Case Summary).


Justice Thomas, once again, issued a scathing dissent from the denial of certiorari.  He noted that the analysis the 9th Circuit employed was “indistinguishable from rational-basis review.” For those readers unfamiliar with the levels of scrutiny, rational-basis is the lowest standard a court employs with respect to constitutional rights.

 …it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.

Justice Thomas continues “[i]f a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”

Petitioners Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs (Firearms Policy Coalition) brought suit challenging California’s 10 day waiting period under the Second Amendment, specifically that the waiting period was unconstitutional as applied to “subsequent purchasers”. The District Court entered a judgment for the Petitioners.

The District Court, after applying an intermediate scrutiny analysis, found that the waiting period was not reasonably tailored to promote an important government interest. It is at the District Court that findings of fact occur. The Court found, among other things, that twenty percent of background checks are auto-approved and took less than two hours to complete. Silvester v. Harris, 41 F. Supp. 3d 927, 964 (ED Cal. 2014). It also found that the arguments for the “cooling off period”, while novel, were inconclusive as to their effectiveness. Id at 954-955. The Court noted that the studies presented by the government, seemed “to assume that the individual does not already possess a firearm.” Id. at 966.


California, unsurprsingly, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, which reversed the District Court’s judgment, upholding the 10 day wait period. The 9th Circuit, claimed to have applied intermediate scrutiny, but as Justice Thomas noted, “its analysis did not resemble anything approaching that standard.” Perhaps most egregious is that the 9th Circuit did not defer to the District Court’s findings of fact.

The Ninth Circuit’s deviation from ordinary principles of law is unfortunate, though not surprising. Its dismissive treatment of petitioners’ challenge is emblematic of a larger trend. As I have previously explained, the lower courts are resisting this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald and are failing to protect the Second Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights. (emphasis added).

The dissent shows Justice Thomas’s frustration with the Supreme Court’s continued denial of certiorari in Second Amendment matters. “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

Time will tell if the Court opts to pick up a Second Amendment challenge in the future. Justice Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in his dissent from the denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California, signaling that he too believes Second Amendment issues are ripe for discussion.


Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.


Filed under Firearms Law, Uncategorized

PRESS RELEASE: Monumental Mental Health Second Amendment As-Applied Challenge Success

We are extremely proud to announce that Attorney Joshua Prince was successful in a second Second Amendment as-applied challenge in relation to a prior mental health commitment.

As our viewers are likely aware from Attorney Prince’s blog article Monumental Decision from the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania Regarding Mental Health Commitments and the Second Amendment, over a year and three months ago, Attorney Prince was successful in obtaining relief for Mr. Yox, who had previously been involuntarily committed as a juvenile but later went on to honorably serve in our Armed Forces and later as a state correctional officer. Under federal law, Mr. Yox was permitted to possess a firearm and ammunition in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer, but was precluded from possessing a firearm and ammunition in his private capacity. In fact, in providing relief to Mr. Yox, the court declared:

Indeed, Mr. Yox provides the perfect test case to challenge § 922(g)(4), as the illogical contradiction of being able to possess firearms in his professional capacities but not being able to possess a firearm for protection in his own home puts in relief a factual scenario where an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to this statute may succeed.

Indeed, if Mr. Yox were not to succeed on his as-applied challenge, we cannot imagine that there exists any person who could.

Unfortunately, the court had previously dismissed his co-plaintiff’s (Mr. Keyes’) identical arguments on the basis that the Pennsylvania Superior Court had already considered his Second Amendment challenge and found against him in In re Keyes. After rendering its decision on Plaintiff Yox’s claims, Mr. Keyes filed a request for the court to reconsider its prior ruling and arguing that it would be a manifest injustice if the court were deny him relief based on the faulty decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

On October 4, 2016, Judge John E. Jones, III. overturned his prior holding finding that Mr. Keyes’ Second Amendment as-applied claim was barred and declared that Mr. Keyes “is in a materially identical situation” to Mr. Yox and that denying Keyes, while granting relief to Mr. Yox, would seem to constitute an “inequitable administration of the law” and “manifest injustice.”Judge Jones specifically declared in finding that the Pennsylvania Superior Court incorrectly analyzed his prior Second Amendment challenge:

The result is that Keyes is left behind while his co-Plaintiff receives full relief simply because Keyes pursued his Second Amendment claims in what turned out to be the wrong court. He is left with no recourse to receive vindication of his constitutional right to bear arms, even though this Court has, for all material purposes, made clear that his claim has full merit. This is a grossly unfair and inequitable result.

Judge Jones went on to state that “[w]e would be hard pressed to think of a better example of an inequitable administration of the laws, and it is a circumstance that cries out to be rectified.”

Thereafter, extensive discovery ensued and the Government and Mr. Keyes filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Yesterday, in an initially sealed memorandum (which was unsealed today with the consent of Mr. Keyes), Judge Jones, after providing a substantial and substantive analysis of the law and evidence of record, declared:

We have been presented with no evidence to indicate that disarming those who went through a period of mental illness and suicide attempts over a decade ago and who have regularly carried firearms in their professional capacity since that time reasonably fits within the governmental interest to promote safety. As such, 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(4) cannot withstand intermediate scrutiny in the face of Keyes’ as-applied challenge. Enforcement of the statute against Keyes therefore violates his right to keep and bear arms – a right guaranteed to him by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

More importantly, telling of Judge Jones’ character and being an ardent defender of constitutional rights, he further declared:

We freely acknowledge our mindfulness of the fact that this decision is rendered in a time when our country appears awash in gun violence. Given the tenor of the times, it would be easy and indeed alluring to conclude that Plaintiff lacks any recourse. But to do so would be an abdication of this Court’s responsibility to carefully apply precedent, even when, as here, it is less than clear. Our jurisprudence and the unique facts presented guide us to the inescapable conclusion that if the Second Amendment is to mean anything, and it is beyond peradventure that it does, Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Please join us in congratulating Attorney Prince for this monumental victory, as well as, Judge Jones for ensuring that for every wrong committed, the court has the power to correct it.

If you or someone you know has been involuntarily committed and is now prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition, contact us today to discuss your options.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

District Attorney Stedman Issues Firearm Preemption Letter

Today, I obtained a copy of a letter that Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman issued regarding unlawful ordinances in violation of Pennsylvania’s preemption statute, which was sent to all the police departments in Lancaster County, as a result of my recent success in Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) v. Lower Merion Township.

As our viewers are aware, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120 provides, inter alia,

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

The case law, including from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has been “crystal clear” than only the General Assembly can regulate firearms and ammunition, as the entire field is preempted. See, Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. City of Philadelphia, 977 A.2d 78, 82 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). In FOAC v. Lower Merion Township, the Commonwealth Court held that, inter alia, the township’s discharge ordinance was unlawful due to state preemption. See, FOAC v. Lower Merion Township, 151 A.3d 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2016) (petition for allocatur denied July 11, 2017 ).

As a result, District Attorney Stedman issued a letter to all Lancaster County police departments reminding them than any local ordinances regulating firearms and ammunition are unlawful. Specifically, he unequivocally stated:

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held, appropriately, that any such county, municipal, or township ordinance designed to regulate firearms is specifically preempted by the Pennsylvania Constitution and 18 § 6120 of the Uniform Firearms Act. (emphasis added)

And that

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clearly denied all municipalities the power to regulate firearms and the Uniform Firearms Act prohibits a township from regulation concerning the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms or ammunition “in any manner”, to include ordinances on parks. (emphasis added).

Because of District Attorney Stedman’s prior commitment and dedication to the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21, I previously endorsed him for Judge of the Superior Court and this letter has only solidified in my mind that my prior endorsement was proper.

As such, I am respectfully asking that you vote for him in November to ensure that our inalienable rights are protected.

To learn more about Craig Stedman for Superior Court, check out his website and Facebook page. Obviously, if you are in a financial position to be able to donate to his campaign, I am sure he would greatly appreciate support!

If your rights have been violated by an illegal firearm or ammunition ordinance or regulation promulgated by a state agency, county, municipality or township, 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.


Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Endorsement – Craig Stedman for Superior Court Judge

Today, I am formally announcing my endorsement of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman for the Pennsylvania Superior Court. While some may be surprised with my endorsement of District Attorney Stedman – as I have been critical of him in relation to two specific matters – candidate Stedman provided me the unique opportunity to speak with him extensively about his positions and those matters, where I learned that my original criticism was misplaced, based upon a misunderstanding of his awareness of the situation, and which has resulted in me truly believing that he would be a phenomenal addition to the Superior Court.

In a conversation that lasted over an hour, we discussed everything from how his Office handles prosecutions of individuals who putatively make false statements on the ATF 4473 forms to preemption violations to self-defense claims and his ardent support for the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21. In relation to the one matter where I previously criticized him, I learned that he was not aware of the prosecution and as soon as he became aware, he immediately and personally reviewed all the evidence, sat down with Assistant District Attorneys in his Office that were involved and explained to them how it would be a manifest injustice for the prosecution to continue. As a result, he directed that the charges be immediately dismissed.

We also discussed numerous cases and decisions that he made, which clearly reflect his steadfast devotion to the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21. In this vein, I was genuinely surprised to leave our conversation with one overarching feeling – he sincerely cares about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I cannot honestly state the last time, in speaking with an appellate judicial candidate, that I left with anywhere close to that feeling.

While many of you are aware that I do not take the endorsement of candidates – especially judicial candidates – lightly, as I truly believe that District Attorney Stedman respects and will continue to honor the Second Amendment, as well as, our other constitutional rights, I am proud to endorse him for the Superior Court. As it is imperative that we only elect judges that respect the Constitution, which I wholeheartedly believe District Attorney Stedman does, I am respectfully asking that you vote for him in November. Together, we can ensure that our inalienable rights are protected.

To learn more about Craig Stedman for Superior Court, check out his website and Facebook page. Obviously, if you are in a financial position to be able to donate to his campaign, I am sure he would greatly appreciate support!


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

SCOTUS Denies Certiorari in Binderup/Suarez

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the U.S. Government’s request for appeal in the combined cases of Attorney General Sessions v. Binerup and Suarez, leaving in place the District Court and Third Circuit decisions holding that an individual can successfully bring a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to a non-violent misdemeanor firearms disability.

I previously reviewed the Third Circuit’s decision in this blog article.

If you are prohibited as a result of a misdemeanor conviction, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., to help you restore your Second Amendment Rights.


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

Are you in need of a Maryland firearms lawyer?

If you are in need of a Maryland firearms lawyer, Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., issued a press release earlier today that Chief Counsel Joshua Prince has been formally admitted by the Court of Appeal of Maryland, so that he can practice firearms law in Maryland, in addition to Pennsylvania.

Please join us in congratulating Joshua on this monumental achievement!


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 Firearms Law, Maryland Firearms Law