Quantcast
Channel: “joshua prince”– Prince Law Offices, P.C.
Viewing all 93 articles
Browse latest View live

Press Release: Pending Litigation Against Municipalities That Violate Section 6120

0
0

As many news agencies are reporting on Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) Chief Counsel Joshua Prince‘s letter to the City of Harrisburg, we believe it is important that everyone be aware of some of the issues being overlooked by the reporting.

As of this release, the reporting has failed to reflect that any such ordinance or regulation by a municipality or county is a violation of Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code, even absent the Act 192 amendments. Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6119, a violation of Section 6120, our state firearm preemption statute, is a misdemeanor of the first degree. This is the highest level misdemeanor that exists in the Commonwealth. In direct violation of the Crimes Code, Mayor Papenfuse has stated “The city’s not going to repeal its ordinances, because our police department feels that they are in the public interest, and I do too,” and Chief Carter said “officers regularly cite violators for reckless discharge of guns in the city and when minors are caught in possession of firearms.” It is unfortunate that our elected officials and law enforcement officers believe it is acceptable, and even gloat, that they are violating the Crimes Code by charging individuals, pursuant to illegal and unlawful ordinances and regulations.

Second, while some claim that such ordinances and regulations are in the best interest of the public, they have failed to show any statistical data that such ordinances and regulations deter/prevent crime or that other state level crimes, enacted by the General Assembly, are insufficient for prosecution. For example, if an individual recklessly discharges a firearm, depending on the circumstances, the individual can be charged with recklessly endangering another person, terroristic threats, aggravated assault and simple assault, all of which have been enacted by the General Assembly, are not prohibited by Section 6120 and carry grading levels of both felonies and misdemeanors. If the ability to charge an individual with a felony is not sufficient to dissuade that individual from committing a crime, clearly a summary offense, the lowest grade criminal charging that exists within the Commonwealth, will be insufficient to deter that criminal.

More importantly, whether it benefits the public is immaterial because the General Assembly has preempted any such regulation, as previously held by the PA Supreme Court and Commonwealth Court. If a municipality or county desires to have the law changed, instead of violating the Crimes Code, it can petition its representatives for such an amendment to the law. Unfortunately, due to municipalities ignoring the dictate of the General Assembly and District Attorneys failing to prosecute those that violate Section 6120, the Legislature was left with no recourse but to enact Act 192.

While we applaud those municipalities and counties that are taking immediate corrective steps to rescind their illegal ordinances and regulations, it is unfortunate that others, such as the City of Harrisburg, City of Philadelphia and City of Pittsburgh, are actively promoting the violation of our Crimes Code. What message does that send to our youth and the public? Is it in the public’s interest to have our youth believe that our elected official are above the law and will not be held accountable? If the concern is truly about the public interest, it is time that our elected officials take responsibility or be held responsible for their actions.



PRESS RELEASE: Chief Counsel Joshua Prince to be on NBC10’s @ Issue on Sunday!

0
0

We are proud to announce that Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will be on NBC 10’s @ Issue on Sunday at 11:30 AM discussing Pennsylvania’s recent amendment to our firearm and ammunition preemption statute, known as Act 192. Shira Goodman from CeaseFirePA will also be in attendance.

Tune in to watch Attorney Prince debate Mrs. Goodman regarding Act 192, its validity, and the criminal penalties, since 1974, associated with violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120. This is guaranteed to be a show you don’t want to miss!

If you live in a municipality that is violating your rights by regulating firearms or ammunition, contact us today – 888-313-0416 or Info@PrinceLaw.com – to discuss your legal rights! Together, we can ensure that our Article 1, Section 21 and Second Amendment Rights are here for our children.

crest_b-edit


FICG/Prince Law Offices, P.C.’s Eighth Bi-Annual Machinegun Shoot – May, 16, 2015!

0
0

Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG)®, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will be hosting our eighth bi-annual machine gun shoot at Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun Club on May 16, 2015, in celebration of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 21 of the PA Constitution and Chief Counsel Joshua Prince’s birthday. 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 an meet FICG Chief Counsel and your PA Gun Attorney, Joshua Prince, as well as, our 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.

Bear Paw Arms will be in attendance.

We expect that several celebrities and politicians will be in attendance. When we are able to confirm their attendance, we will post about who will be attending.

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 Office Manager, Linda Martin, at lmartin@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.


Pennsylvania Firearms Law Seminar – July 25, 2015!

0
0

On July 25, 2015, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Eric Winter of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with King Shooters Supply, will offer a four (4) hour seminar on state and federal firearms law at their store located at  346 E Church Rd, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.

The cost is $10 and you must register early, as last time it sold out fast. You can find out further information on King Shooters Supply’s website or on King Shooters Supply’s FB page.  All registrations are to be mailed or dropped off at King Shooters Supply, 346 E Church Rd, King of Prussia PA 19406. If you have questions, please feel free to contact King Shooters Supply at 610-491-9901 .


FICG/Prince Law Offices, P.C.’s Ninth Bi-Annual Machinegun Shoot – October 17, 2015!

0
0

Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG)®, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will be hosting our ninth bi-annual machine gun shoot at Eastern Lancaster County Rod and Gun Club on October 17, 2015, 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 an meet FICG Chief Counsel and your PA Gun Attorney, Joshua Prince, as well as, our 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.

We expect that several celebrities and politicians will be in attendance. When we are able to confirm their attendance, we will post about who will be attending.

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.


PRESS RELEASE: Amici Curiae Brief of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly Filed Against the City of Harrisburg

0
0

Today, Joshua Prince, Esq., Chief Counsel of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., filed an amici curiae brief (or friends of the court brief) on behalf of numerous members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly against the City of Harrisburg, in the matter of City of Harrisburg, et al., v. U.S. Law Shield of Pennsylvania, LLC, et al., 449 C.D. 2015. You can find a copy of the Amici Curiae brief here.

When asked for comment, Chief Counsel declared,

It is a distinct honor and privilege to serve the residents of this Commonwealth by filing this Amici Curiae brief on behalf of numerous Members of the General Assembly, who are ardent supporters and defenders Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, against the City of Harrisburg and its unlawful and illegal firearm ordinances. Together, we have drawn a line in the sand and made explicitly clear that such conduct will not be condoned nor tolerated.

Please join us in congratulating Chief Counsel Prince in the filing of this Amici Curiae brief on behalf of numerous Members of the General Assembly!


Pennsylvania Firearms Law Seminar – October 24, 2015!

0
0

On October 24, 2015, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Eric Winter of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with King Shooters Supply, will offer a four (4) hour seminar from 10am to 2pm on state and federal firearms law at their store located at  346 E Church Rd, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.

The cost is $10 and you must register early, as last time it sold out fast. You can find out further information on King Shooters Supply’s website or on King Shooters Supply’s FB page.  All registrations are to be mailed or dropped off at King Shooters Supply, 346 E Church Rd, King of Prussia PA 19406. If you have questions, please feel free to contact King Shooters Supply at 610-491-9901 .


The Inalienable Right to Stand Your Ground

0
0

We are extremely proud to announce the publication of Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and attorney Allen Thompson‘s article – The Inalienable Right to Stand Your Ground – in Volume 27, Issue 1, of the St. Thomas Law Review. You can find a copy here.

Please join us in congratulating them in this monumental endeavor and their steadfast devotion to protecting all of our inalienable rights!



PRESS RELEASE: Chief Counsel Joshua Prince to be on Business Matters on February 22, 2016!

0
0

On Monday, February 22, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will be on Business Matters with Kim Stolfer, President of Firearm Owners Against Crime debating Shira Goodman of CeaseFire PA and several other individuals in relation to whether additional firearm laws are necessary at the state and federal level.

For those desiring to watch this guaranteed explosive and entertaining debate, you can find a listing of the channels for WFMZ-69TV here. After the show, let us know your thoughts!


FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Changes to the 4473 Form

0
0

Today, Attorney Adam Kraut and Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (“FICG®“), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., filed a Comment in Opposition to numerous changes that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed to the 4473 Form.

FICG® raised a plethora of issues, including that ATF is the incorrect federal administrative agency for determinations of prohibition under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), that ATF cannot redefine a “fugitive from justice” in these proceedings, and issues relating to the certification statement. FICG® also requested that ATF revise the 4473 Form, consistent with the ATF Form 1 and Form 4, whereby it would include fields for fictitious entities, instead of requiring FFLs to draft and attach a fictitious entity form as required by 27 C.F.R. 478.124(g), for which, ATF provides no sample form.

Cannabis Industry Law Group (“CILG”), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., also filed a Comment in Opposition raising issue that 27 C.F.R. 478.11 already acknowledges that the use of physician prescribed controlled substances does not result in a prohibition, as well as that ATF is the incorrect federal administrative agency for determinations of prohibition under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). CILG’s stated purpose is to “protect, defend and assert the legal rights of businesses, professionals and individuals to operate lawful cannabis-related businesses and professions and to use cannabis medication without discrimination.”

It will be interesting to see how ATF responds to these and any other comments submitted.


Attorney General Kane Publishes Report on LTCF Reciprocity Agreements

0
0

Today, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6109(k)(2), published the required annual report on license to carry firearm (LTCF) reciprocity agreements for 2015. You can find a copy here.

Interestingly, although I am acutely aware that Idaho has been reaching out to the Attorney General’s Office for purpose of entering into a reciprocity agreement and I wrote an article last year on whether AG Kane was misleading the General Assembly by failing to disclose the contact with Idaho in her report, once again, this year the Report is silent about Idaho.

Hopefully, the General Assembly will inquire of her as to why we do not have a reciprocity agreement with Idaho.


PRESS RELEASE: Chief Counsel Joshua Prince to be on NBC10’s @ Issue on Sunday!

0
0

We are proud to announce that Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will be on NBC 10’s @ Issue on Sunday at 11:30 AM discussing the recent tragedy in Orlando and how this is not a gun control issue but rather a Gun Free Zone issue.

Tune in to watch Attorney Prince counter PA Senator Casey’s push for more gun control. Attorney Prince explains that gun control will not fix the issues plaguing out national, that we “consistently see individuals brutalized in Gun Free Zones because they’re denied their inalienable right to defend themselves and their loved ones” and that the solution is to eliminate Gun Free Zones and provide more people their inalienable right to defend themselves.  This is guaranteed to be a show you don’t want to miss!

 

crest_b-edit


Devastating Decision from the Superior Court on “Other Lawful Purpose”

0
0

Today, the Superior Court issued a decision in Commonwealth v. Goslin, which addressed the defense in 18 Pa.C.S. § 912 that a weapon could be carried on school property for other lawful purposes.

In this case, Mr. Goslin attended an informal hearing with school officials regarding his son’s possession of a knife on school property. The purpose of the hearing was to “allow the family and student to discuss and answer any questions they may have and the school administration to ask any questions they may have and review the incident as they know it to have been.” During the hearing, Mr Goslin stated “that he had a knife and asked if [the school] would arrest him for having it. At that point, he forcefully placed it on the table in front of people at the meeting.”

Mr. Goslin testified that he carries the knife with him every day “because [he] use[s] it. [He] use[s] it at work, [he] use[s] it to sharpen pencils, [he] use[s] it to open tuna cans when [his] wife forgets to pack [him] a tuna can opener. [He] whittle sticks with [his] sons.” He went on to declare: “It occurred to me at the moment, oh, my goodness, they called the police on my nine-year-old son for having a whittling knife. I actually have a
pocket knife on me now and am I a criminal as well?”

During Mr. Goslin’s trial, he stipulated to possessing the knife on school property but argued that it was possessed for an “other lawful purpose” as provided for by 18 Pa.C.S. 912(c). Specifically, Section 912(c) provides: “Defense.–It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.”

Unfortunately, the trial court declared

My view of the plain reading or the plain language in the statute is that the defense is there for some lawful purpose upon which the weapon would be brought onto the school property, that’s not the same thing as saying that the weapon wasn’t brought there for some unlawful purpose. I see a distinction between those two, and I guess I would agree with the position the Commonwealth has taken that that defense is there for someone to bring a weapon onto the property for some legitimate reason pursuant to their presence on the school property, and there are probably lots of things.

 

I think in [Appellant’s] case, if [he] had said he brought the knife that [his] son was accused of having and it was the basis of the hearing, [Appellant] brought it from an evidentiary standpoint for the hearing itself, that to me would be some type of an example of bringing a weapon onto the property for lawful purposes.

 

The hearing was there, it involved that particular item which the school was alleging was a weapon, and if you had said the reason you had it was for that, I could see that’s something that probably the statute would cover. But that isn’t the case here. This is a different weapon. It’s clearly one that’s set forth in the statute as being prohibited. There isn’t a question about you knowing that it was on your person at the time.

The statute is clearly created to prohibit weapons from being brought onto school property unless there is a specific reason as carved out in the statute that they are to be viewed as not violating this criminal provision, but I don’t think [Appellant’s] situation falls within one of those reasons.

As a result, the trial court convicted him and he appealed, pro se. Unfortunately, the Superior Court believed him competent to handle his own appeal and did not appoint an attorney to handle his appeal.

After the Superior Court found the language “other lawful purpose” to be “not explicit,” it looked to the rules of statutory construction and declared that “public policy of maintaining, and acting to ensure, the safety of those who inhabit our schools” was of paramount importance in interpreting the statutory language.

As a result, the Superior Court held:

Appellant appeared in his capacity as a parent, with no purpose to possessing the knife on school property.

Had Appellant been at the school in a capacity which necessitated his possession of the knife, he could avail himself of the “other lawful purpose” defense to possessing the knife on school property. But that is not the case before us. If we were to accept Appellant’s interpretation of Section 912(c), we would be sanctioning the presence of weapons on school property in countless scenarios. Such sanction would be contrary to the intent of the General Assembly, which clearly enacted Section 912 to safeguard public welfare by prohibiting weapons in or near schools. We therefore discern no error by the trial court in convicting Appellant of possessing a weapon on school property, and affirm the June 2, 2015 judgment of sentence.

Learned Judge Dubow’s dissent, on the other hand, correctly reviews the plain meaning of the statute and declares:

Here, unlike the majority, I find that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous and should, therefore, not look beyond its plain language to ascertain its meaning.

 

My review confirms that the plain meaning of Section 912(c) provides two separate defenses: (1) possessing a weapon on school property “in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity;” and (2) possessing “for other lawful purpose.”

Something that is “other” is “distinct from the one or those first mentioned or understood,” or is “additional.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1598 (1986).

 

A “lawful” act is one that is “allowed or permitted by law.”

 

And, last, a “purpose” is “something that one sets before himself as an object to be attained,” “an end or aim to be kept in view in any plan, measure, exertion, or operation,” or “an object, effect, or result aimed at, intended, or attained.”

By its plain terms, the first clause of this subsection specifically provides as a defense to the charge of Possession of Weapon on School Property the possession of a weapon that is possessed and used in association with a lawful supervised school activity or course.

 

The second clause of this subsection—and the one at issue here— serves as a catchall provision. The “other lawful purpose” language does not restrict the defense provided in section 912(c), as the majority has concluded. Instead, I find that the critical phrase does just the opposite. It expands the defense to include any additional or different lawful reason not otherwise mentioned in the first clause of section 912(c), regardless ofwhether it is school-related. To conclude otherwise renders “possessed for other lawful purpose” redundant with “possessed and used in association with a lawful supervised school activity or course.”

I note that the possession of weapons on school property is obviously a major concern to communities across Pennsylvania. It is, however, for the legislature, and not the courts, to limit the applicability of a defense to any crime. The legislature has not yet done so here and the courts lack the authority to re-write the clear and unambiguous language of Section 912(c). Therefore, I am bound to interpret Section 912(c) broadly, and, consequently, would reverse Appellant’s judgment of sentence and order a new trial. (emphasis added)

Accordingly, under this decision, an individual cannot carry a firearm pursuant to a valid license to carry firearms, even though such would not be a per se unlawful purpose. Rather, in Judge Mundy’s and Judge Strassburger’s judicially activist opinion, one must have an explicitly statutory permitted basis, such as being a law enforcement officer, to have a firearm on school property.

However, all may not be lost. Since this was a 3 judge panel decision, with a dissenting opinion, the Superior Court may be enticed to review the decision en banc, if a proper motion for reconsideration en banc is filed by competent counsel. Otherwise, unless appealed and overturned by the PA Supreme Court, this decision will be controlling.


Monumental Decision from the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania Regarding Mental Health Commitments and the Second Amendment

0
0

Today, Judge John E. Jones, III. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held in Keyes, et al. v. Loretta Lynch, et al. that an individual, who was involuntarily committed on a single-isolated occasion, can successfully challenge a prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

In this case, both Mr. Keyes and Mr. Yox challenged, inter alia, whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) violated their Second Amendment rights, as-applied to their specific factual scenarios. Unfortunately, although Mr. Keyes and Mr. Yox’s factual backgrounds were extremely similar, the reason Mr. Keyes was denied the same outcome as Mr. Yox was due to the PA Superior Court’s previous incorrect analysis in In re Keyes, which Judge Jones felt precluded him from addressing Mr. Keyes’ Second Amendment as-applied challenge.

In addressing Mr. Yox’s challenge, the court declared:

Notably, Defendants hardly mention at all in their briefing, much less challenge, the specific facts of Mr. Yox’ case. Defendants reference Mr. Yox’s possession and use of firearms as a member of the military and as a correctional officer only to argue that there is no legal support for the position that his Second Amendment right can be restored “merely by virtue of his employment history.” (Doc. 46, p. 4). That this dismissive treatment of Mr. Yox’s public service [as] ungracious is clear. But more importantly, Defendants avoid addressing the clear irony of Mr. Yox’s situation. It requires a suspension of logic to believe that Mr. Yox is mentally stable enough to possess and use various types of firearms in his professional capacity, including putting his life on the line for his country while on active military duty, but is not mentally stable enough to possess a firearm for self protection in his home.

The court then went on to declare:

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.

I must admit that it is extremely refreshing to see Judge Jones acknowledge that those who “are mentally ill” is a distinct and separate category from those who had an single-isolated mental health commitment over a decade ago. I believe we will see a number of federal challenges, some already pending in Pennsylvania, in relation to whether mental health commitments can strip an individual of a constitutional right, especially under Section 302 of the Mental Health and Procedures Act, as it does not provide any form of due process.


PRESS RELEASE: Attorney Adam Kraut to Run for NRA Board of Directors

0
0

It is with distinct honor and privilege that we announce that Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) Attorney Adam Kraut is running for the NRA Board of Directors.

For those who don’t know Adam, he’s an ardent and steadfast defender of the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21 in both of his careers. Whether he is acting as general manager of King Shooter Supply in King of Prussia or actively defending the Second Amendment in state or federal court, Adam is the next generation of Second Amendment Advocates that we need to install in the NRA. As Adam declared,

Some days of the week I spend arming the free world and other days I fight back against unconstitutional laws and regulations from behind a desk or educating my fellow citizens at firearms law seminars.

But this barely scratches the surface as to Adam’s background, knowledge and experience, both in and out of a courtroom. As declared by Chief Counsel Joshua Prince, who was recently awarded the Defender of Justice Award and is an NRA Benefactor who is being inducted into the Charleston Heston Society and Golden Ring of Freedom,

I cannot think of another individual that I would rather have at the helm of the NRA representing me nor a better litigator and defender of justice than Adam. Having litigated cases with Adam, I know he has the skill and, if necessary, the tenacity to ensure that ALL firearm rights are protected. Adam will bring with him, as the next generation of Second Amendment Advocates, the understanding and steadfast devotion to preserving the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, including those currently within the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA). If you are an NFA collector, such as myself, you know your rights will be protected by Adam.

But if you aren’t satisfied with Chief Counsel Prince’s endorsement, just look to Adam’s website, where he has more than two dozen endorsements from leading Firearm Industry members and provides further background on himself and his accomplishments. From Rockwell Tactical, to John Hollister (formerly of AAC), to Patton Media and Consulting, the Firearms Industry supports Adam!

However, Adam cannot do it without YOUR support. We are asking that any NRA member who is either (1) a life member or (2) a member for the past 5 years, sign his petition. He needs 250 signatures to be placed on the ballot and we fully anticipate, knowing Adam, that he’ll end up with several thousand signatures. As we’ve heard that he doesn’t get enough email at the office, please make sure to request his petition (as each request is another email for him) and send him back an executed copy…we don’t want him thinking that the legal profession is just an 80 hr work week!

You can find out further information about Adam and how to sign his petition on his website: www.adamkraut.com and his Facebook page.

We sincerely hope that you will take the time to support a TRUE Second Amendment advocate.



ATF’s Shocking Position on “Makers” of Silencers/Suppressors, Especially in Relation to Solvent Traps

0
0

As many of our readers are aware, Attorney Adam Kraut and I attended the NSSF’s Import/Export Conference on August 2-3, 2016, for which we blogged about many of the statements made by ATF (and other federal agencies) in our blog – News from the Round Table Discussions at the NSSF Import/Export Conference. One issue that we did not discuss is ATF’s statements during the Round Table Discussions relating to ATF’s position on “makers” of silencers/suppressors, especially relative to what been called “solvent traps.”

For those who are unaware, there are a number of business offering “solvent traps,” which are designed to thread on the end of one’s barrel to capture the solvent, typically in an oil or fuel filter threaded on the end.

Oil Filter Suppressor 1Oil Filter Suppressor 2.jpg

While the use of these devices for purposes of collecting solvent is questionable, many of these companies advise their customers that if they want to be able to use the solvent trap as a silencer/suppressor, the customer must first file a Form 1 with ATF to make a silencer and receive approval, before utilizing the solvent trap for purposes of being a silencer. (While we would advise our clients to file a Form 1 and obtain approval of ATF prior to even purchasing a solvent trap or similar device, so to prevent against constructive possession charges, such is beyond the scope of this article).

Under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), 26 U.S.C. 5801, et seq, one who wishes to “make” an NFA firearm must file an application with the Attorney General, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5822. (Although the statute still references the Secretary (of the Treasury), when ATF was moved under DOJ in 2003, it changed to the Attorney General). Under the NFA, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5845, “make” is defined as to “include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter [26 USCS §§ 5801 et seq.]), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.”  While the NFA, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5841, does differentiate between a “maker” and a “manufacturer” in relation to how one is to initially register an NFA firearm  and does define “make” as mentioned previously, nothing in the NFA differentiates between the rights of a “maker” and those of a “manufacturer.”

Nevertheless, during a discussion on ATF-29p (ATF’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to Silencer/Suppressor engravings), ATF’s Mike Curtis and Earl Griffith with the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (“FATD”) stated that ATF views “makers” of silencers/suppressors differently than “manufacturers.” Specifically, the example of solvent traps was brought up, where they stated that ATF’s position is that a “maker” of a silencer cannot replace a silencer part without filing a new Form 1, paying another $200.00 and obtaining approval from ATF; whereas, a manufacturer, may lawfully replace a silencer part in a silencer it manufactured, provided that the part that is being replaced is destroyed. While there does not exist any specific statutory provision to support this contention, Mr. Curtis went on to explain that an individual who files a Form 1 to make a “solvent trap silencer” can only use the original oil/fuel filter that is installed and is barred from replacing a previously utilized oil/fuel filter with a new filter, absent a newly approved Form 1.

While Mr. Curtis did admit that to his knowledge ATF has not been asked to make a determination on a solvent trap silencer, he was explicitly clear that if a determination request was filed (or criminal charges brought against someone in such a situation), ATF would specifically find and contend that a “maker” of a silencer/suppressor may not repair/replace any part of the silencer/suppressor without first obtaining another approved Form 1.

Obviously, ATF’s position has a great impact on the Firearms Industry, as many individuals have made their own silencers/suppressors, long before the solvent trap silencers, and have been under the impression that like a manufacturer of a silencer/suppressor, they may lawfully replace a part in that silencer, provided that they destroy the part being replaced.

While Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., does not agree with ATF’s position, we believe it is extremely important to advise those who have Form 1’ed their own silencer/suppressor of ATF’s position, since non-compliance could result in federal charging.


US Supreme Court Decision Affects Firearms Rights – Ability to Obtain Relief from Certain DUIs!

0
0

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, 14-1468, in which the Court held that while implied consent laws relative to driving under the influence (DUI) may impose civil penalties, it is unconstitutional for them to impose criminal penalties for refusing to consent.

Specifically, as the Syllabus to the decision declares:

Motorists may not be criminally punished for refusing to submit to a blood test based on legally implied consent to submit to them. It is one thing to approve implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply, but quite another for a State to insist upon an intrusive blood test and then to impose criminal penalties on refusal to submit. There must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads. Pg 36-37

So how does this affect your firearm rights?

Under Pennsylvania law, if an individual refuses his/her consent relative to a second (or third) DUI, the criminal grading becomes a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, which is federally prohibiting for purposes of purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition. I previously blogged about a similar situation in Pennsylvania, when the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Musau. Unfortunately, as a result of the Superior Court’s decision, the General Assembly amended the statute, so that anyone who refused consent on a second (or third) DUI would be penalized by a misdemeanor of the first degree, instead of an ungraded misdemeanor (which would not be prohibiting under state or federal law).

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield, those individuals in Pennsylvania who have been convicted or pled guilty to a misdemeanor of the first degree as a result of a second (or third) DUI, due to their refusal to consent, have been subjected to an unlawful sentence and have a limited opportunity to file for relief under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).

Therefore, if you or a family member were convicted of a second or third DUI, where you refused to submit to chemical testing, contact us immediately, as you have the ability to petition the court to have your conviction properly reflect the grading as an ungraded misdemeanor, which would not trigger a state or federal firearms disability.

As Federal Firearms Relief is not currently available and the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons does not with any frequency grant pardons to those who have been convicted of repeat offenses, this may be your ONLY extremely limited opportunity to obtain relief!

Contact Us Today to Discuss YOUR Rights and How We Can Restore Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms – info@princelaw.com or 888-313-0416


ATF Just Banned Ammunition – Well Not Really…

0
0

The internet is a blaze with articles declaring that ATF just banned ammunition sales as a result of a June 2016 Explosives Newsletter; however, it isn’t exactly true (at least, not anymore). The ATF publishes newsletters which provide insight into complex subjects, shifting policies, and guidance on ATF’s plans to enforce regulations. In the June 2016 Explosives Newsletter ATF ‘clarified’ that Nitrocellulose is a high explosive subject to the requirements of the Safe Explosives Act and other laws governing the sale, storage, and transport of high explosives. You may be thinking – “Well great…but what is Nitrocellulose and what does that have to do with ammo?”

The answer to that is simple – most ammunition used in the United States is powered by smokeless gunpowders. Unlike black powder which is a fairly straight forward mix of chemicals, smokeless powders are proprietary blends of different chemicals each unique to the manufacturer. Unique that is except for the base chemical – Nitrocellulose.

The FBI Laboratory Services explains, “All smokeless powders can be placed into one of three different classes according to the…composition of their primary energetic ingredients. A single-base powder contains NITROCELLULOSE, whereas a double-base powder contains NITROCELLULOSE and nitroglyverine. …[T]riple-base powders are NITROCELLULOSE, nitroglycerine, and nitroguanidine….” Or put another way – If your ammunition uses any type of smokeless powder the odds are that it contains Nitrocellulose.

Okay, okay but what does all this mean? – High explosives are subject to extremely stringent regulations. These regulations mean that not just anyone can manufacture, store, or purchase high explosives. High explosives have to be secured in specialized magazines which are more like a bunker than what you insert into your pistol or rifle. High explosives have to be reported and anyone who manufacturers or sells these items have to be thoroughly subjected to background checks and all of their employees (referred to as “responsible persons”) have to be checked out and licensed. Even within the licensing structure there are different requirements.

If smokeless powders are now considered high explosives then ammunition can no longer be sold on store shelves. Manufacturers need to completely redesign their operations, rebuilding their facilities and ensuring their personnel meet the stringent requirements. Simply put, if ATF intends to enforce this new designation ammunition is going to be almost impossible to acquire.

Fortunately, it seems ATF did exactly what it does best – jump the gun. On August 31, 2016 ATF posted an addendum to their June 2016 newsletter. The addendum is merely one paragraph long and suffices to say:

[C]ontact from industry members…has brought to our attention issues that were not fully addressed…and require further consultation and consideration with the industry. Accordingly, ATF has and will conduct further industry outreach….”

In other words, someone at ATF received a question about Nitrocellulose and never stopped to think about the implications of clarifying it as a high explosive. Thankfully, at this time, ATF has concluded, “[i]n the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.

We here at Prince Law Offices and the Firearms Industry Consulting Group will be sure to update you as ATF releases more information.


MONUMENTAL Decision from the Superior Court Vacating Its Prior Decision Regarding Weapons on School Property!

0
0

As our viewers are aware, I previously wrote about the devastating decision in Commonwealth v. Goslin from the Superior Court in relation to carrying a weapon on school property and the “other lawful purpose” defense.

After the decision, Mr. Goslin contacted me and we, pro-bono, filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Reargument en banc, wherein, inter alia, we argued that the Superior Court should permit new briefs to be filed and oral argument, after vacating the court’s July 6, 2016 decision. Today, the Superior Court GRANTED the motion, withdrew the July 6, 2016 decisions and scheduled re-briefing and argument.

Accordingly, the Superior Court’s July 6, 2016 decision is no longer valid and we will have an opportunity to re-argue the matter. Unfortunately, the court only provided several weeks to submit briefs and Mr. Goslin is not in a position to fund the briefing and argument. Therefore, if you are in a position to be able to help fund this matter, Mr. Goslin would greatly appreciate donations which can be made online through our Firm’s escrow account here – https://secure.lawpay.com/pages/princelaw/trust. Simply place Goslin Appeal in the Matter No/Client Name box.

We will keep our viewers apprised of the Superior Court’s ultimate decision in this matter


Allentown RTKL Response to Illegal Firearm Regulation Proposals

0
0

As many of our viewers are aware, I frequently submit Right to Know Law (RTKL) requests to municipalities in relation to firearms law matters. After the City of Allentown noticed its intent to propose and adopt new firearm ordinances, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, I filed a RTKL Request seeking information relative to the proposals, including communications related thereto.

Specifically, I requested:

Any letter, email, fax or written communication from any person in the Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office or any person from the Office for Solicitor for the City of Allentown relating to any existing or proposed ordinance or regulation relating to firearms or ammunition from January 1, 2008 through the present.  Reporter Emily Opilo recently published an article stating that letters received from District Attorney Martin and Solicitor Wild relating to a proposed ordinance regulating firearms and ammunition were discussed at a meeting on August 17, 2016 – http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-allentown-lost-gun-law-committee-20160817-story.html

Today, I received a response from the City approving in part and denying in part my request. In addition to the cover letter, they produced 52 pages of records. While many of the pages are copies of cases, pages 1-2, 45-50 and 51-52 are letters from Lehigh County District Attorney James Martin informing the City, the City Council members and Mayor Ed Pawlowski that any such regulation is unlawful and unconstitutional. While it is extremely refreshing to see a District Attorney actively involved in a firearm and ammunition preemption issue, its unfortunate that no mention was made of the criminality of violating Section 6120, as such would be a misdemeanor of the first degree, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6119, as well as constituting official oppression. Maybe, District Attorney Martin was saving the best for last, in case they elected to move forward with an illegal and unconstitutional regulation.

I, personally, would like to thank and commend District Attorney Martin for immediately and preemptively addressing this issue. Come election time, please always remember that District Attorney Martin is a staunch defender of Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.


Viewing all 93 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images