Today, I met with a client who was denied by FBI / PSP because of, as stated on the denial, “Veterans Affairs Administration.”

Although I’ve vociferously spoken out against the VA being able to strip individuals’ Second Amendment rights, in all honesty, until today, I had not seen a case where a veteran had actually been denied in the absence of an actual involuntary mental health commitment or formal adjudication of incompetence. Today, that all changed.

While past stories discuss denying a veteran, where the veteran elected to have a third-party handle his/her financial affairs (and of course, I have to question how someone who is deemed to be “incompetent” can execute a form competently…but I digress), my client’s denial is far more egregious – as if, I ever thought I could see such a situation.

In my client’s situation, he handles all of his own finances. The VA does not dispute this. Rather, when I finally got a representative from the VA on the line, she informed us that the VA, on its own initiative, placed him into “supervised direct payment status”. When I inquired as to what “supervised direct payment status” was, the representative stated that it is where the veteran handles his/her own financial affairs but they “watch the veteran’s financial accounts.” While the VA contended that they sent out a letter about this status being imposed on my client, my client never received such a letter and they acknowledged that it does not mention anything about the loss of the veteran’s Second Amendment rights, but that the VA has been imposing such since 2013.

No due process is provided. The representative acknowledged that my client never received a hearing and that the determination that my client was incompetent was made solely by a VA official reviewing his case. She stated that he could have appealed the determination when he received the original letter, but the time has since past to appeal. Remember, this is the letter that my client never received and which makes no mention of the loss of one’s Second Amendment rights…

While they have reluctantly agreed to send my client copies of the putative letter that they allegedly previously sent, they refused to provide his entire file, even at my request. This is the new Veteran Affairs Administration, folks. We now treat our illegal immigrants with more respect and benefits than our own veterans. This is an absolute disgrace and the VA’s policies and procedures need to be immediately reversed. Of course, we’re all aware that such is unlikely if former Secretary Clinton is elected…

Today, I became aware of an article by Stephen J. Nesbitt and Jonathan D. Silver of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette entitled Sheriff’s Office deletes photos of Pirate Parrot ‘gun license’ in which it not only alleges, but provides proof, that the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office issued a license to carry firearms (LTCF) to a fictitious mascot – Pirate Parrot – in violation of the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA).

The article includes a photo of the LTCF that was issued (interestingly reflecting an issuance date of 4/2/15), which the article declares was taken down off of the Sheriff Office’s social media page but which Allegheny County Sheriff Mullens confirmed the existence of.

While some may not be alarmed and may believe it to be humorous, there are significant legal consequences. First, and foremost, a license to carry firearms can only be issued to an “individual,”after the requisite investigation, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6109. Clearly, the Pirate Parrot is not an individual and a quick review of the LTCF Application, which is promulgated by the Pennsylvania State Police, confirms that it would be an impossibility for the Sheriff to issue an LTCF due to the Pirate Parrot lacking identification, which is defined in 37 Pa.Code. 33.102.

Moreover, in conducting the investigation, the Sheriff is to

• (1)  investigate the applicant’s record of criminal conviction;

• (2)  investigate whether or not the applicant is under indictment for or has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;

• (3)  investigate whether the applicant’s character and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety;

• (4)  investigate whether the applicant would be precluded from receiving a license under subsection (e)(1) or section 6105(h) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms); and

• (5)  conduct a criminal background, juvenile delinquency and mental health check following the procedures set forth in section 6111 (relating to sale or transfer of firearms), receive a unique approval number for that inquiry and record the date and number on the application.

Clearly, it is an impossibility for the Sheriff to conduct such an investigation in relation to a fictitious entity. One must question whether the unique approval number was obtained (whereby false information was provided to the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS)) and whether the Pirate Parrot was charged for his LTCF, since certain portions of the amount collected must be remitted to the State Treasury, pursuant to Section 6109(h)(3). All of these violations, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6119, would be misdemeanors of the first degree.

But there are further violations of the law. Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(g)(3.1),

Any person, … who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.

And then there are the civil consequence of disclosing LTCF applicant information, as provided by Section 6111(i)

Confidentiality. — All information provided by the … applicant, including, but not limited to, the … applicant’s name or identity, furnished by … any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person,… State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $ 1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.

Plus, there are violations related to the Allegheny County Sheriff Department’s inclusion of false information into the Pennsylvania State Police’s database of LTCF applicant information.

What is most disconcerting is that this is the same Sheriff’s Office that imposes unlawful regulations on applicants who apply for LTCFs. As set-forth in Section 6109, only the PSP is to promulgate the form to apply for an LTCF and the criteria for denying an individual is found in Section 6109(e). Yet, in the absence of any criteria found within Section 6109(e), the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Department denies individuals who, prior to a finding of guilt, have an open case in any court and of any type (including traffic citations, parking tickets, fish and game, etc). It also denies anyone with a closed case in any court where exists a remaining case balance, even where the individual has a payment plan with the court. And lastly, in direct violation of Section 6109, the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Department refuses to accept and process applications for non-PA Resident Licenses.

It would be nice if the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Department spent more time on complying with the law than violating the law…but all may not be lost. Given the issuance of Pirate Parrot’s LTCF, now there exists a legal and constitutional basis, under Equal Protection, to challenge all of the Sheriff Departments denials and illegal requirements. More importantly, some in the Sheriff’s Department may have the opportunity to keep former Attorney General Kathleen Kane company in jail.

If you believe your confidential LTCF applicant information has been disclosed by an individual or governmental agency, contact us today to discuss your options!

While I have blogged on the topic extensively, several individuals have requested that I write an article including all the pertinent information (and include new Dept. of State guidance on the topic) in one article, as many residents of Pennsylvania are unaware of their right to carry a firearm while voting, unless their polling location is located at a place which is prohibited under state law, discussed below. The right to carry a firearm while voting is a political statement protected under the First and Second Amendment. In that vein, I did a short video on the right to carry a firearm, while voting. For those interested in a more in-depth review of the general right to carry a firearm while voting in Pennsylvania, keep reading.

During the last two election cycles, I wrote about this issue: Can You Vote While Carrying a Firearm in PA? and It’s Legal to Carry a Firearm, While Voting! In fact, since those articles, more and more counties (and the PA Dept. of State) are realizing and recognizing the lawful right of the people to vote, while carrying a firearm. Before we get into more recent instances of counties recognizing the right of the people, it is important to review the laws in relation to voting, while carrying a firearm.

Pursuant to 18 PA.C.S. 6120,

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.

Furthermore, pursuant to the PA Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652, 657 (1997), and 18 PA.C.S. 6108, one may lawful carry openly in the Commonwealth, with the exception of the City of Philadelphia, unless the individual has a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF). In Hawkins, the Court, citing to its prior precedent in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, declared,

In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license. See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license).

Thus, it is generally lawful to openly or conceal carry a firearm (pursuant to a valid LTCF, issued pursuant to 18 PA.C.S. 6109), as there does not exist a state law precluding such activity. However, there are several exceptions. First, if the polling location is in a court facility, an individual would be precluded from carrying at that polling location because of 18 PA.C.S. 913, which provides, “A person commits an offense if he:(1) knowingly possesses a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a court facility;” however, the law goes on to declare,

Each county shall make available at or within the building containing a court facility by July 1, 2002, lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law. Any individual checking a firearm, dangerous weapon or an item deemed to be a dangerous weapon at a court facility must be issued a receipt. Notice of the location of the facility shall be posted as required under subsection (d).

Hence, although you cannot carry into a court facility, which is a polling location, the court facility/polling location must provide lockers for the temporary checking of the firearm.

The second issue is polling locations at schools. Pursuant to 18 PA.C.S. 912,

A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.

However, there is an defense provided for in that section, which declares,

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, “other lawful purpose” is not defined and our viewers are aware that I am currently litigating a case before the Superior Court – Commonwealth v. Goslin – on whether the defense of “other lawful purposes” allows one to possess a weapon on school grounds. (If you’re in a position to donate to the Goslin litigation, Mr. Goslin would greatly appreciate it and the information is included in the above link).

In 2007, Mr. Gregory Rotz, openly carried his firearm while voting, and as a result, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department revoked his LTCF. By Order dated January 8, 2008, Franklin County Judge John Waller found that no law had been broken and directed that his LTCF be returned to him. And this isn’t the only time that the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department has violated the law. There is currently a class action lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department for disclosing confidential LTCF application information, where the Commonwealth Court recently ruled that the Sheriff’s Department did, in fact, violate the confidentiality provision. But, I digress.

October 29, 2010, the Pa. Dept. of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections & Legislation, issued a letter entitled “Clarification Regarding Firearm Polling Locations,” which, in part, declared,

The Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act does not allow county boards of election to enact resolutions or any other rules and regulations prohibiting firearms from polling places.

However, even after the issuance of that letter, I became involved in a situation in Northampton County in 2012, where an individual was temporarily precluded from voting, while lawfully openly carrying a firearm. As a result of an amicable resolution of the matter, Northampton County has now placed on its website information that it is lawful to possess a firearm while voting, http://www.northamptoncounty.org/northampton/cwp/view.asp?a=1533&Q=621057&northamptonNav=|34800|&northamptonNav_GID=1988. Furthermore, additional safeguards have been implemented in Northampton County, including, but not limited to, poll worker training and providing a copy of the policy to any Common Pleas Judge presiding over Election Court on Election Day.

More recently, in October of 2016, the Pa. Dept. of State issued Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day (yeah, the title is a bit awkward). As a result of a letter that I sent to the Dept. of State several months ago regarding the carrying of firearms while voting and the general lack of training of polling officials on the lawfulness, the Dept. of State included information in the guidance. Specifically, the guidance states:

Voters who have a legal right to carry a firearm cannot be prohibited from entering the polling place to vote…a voter with a legal right to carry a firearm may not be precluded from voting.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to vote, regardless of whether or not you carry a firearm. While I believe voting while carrying a firearm is a political statement, the failure of so many citizens to become involved in the political process may result in us losing our right to make any political statement, as evidenced by the current state of our Union.

If you, a family member or someone you know is precluding from voting, while carrying a firearm, contact us immediately – 888-313-0416 or info@princelaw.com – so that we can discuss your options. We cannot let our Rights be eroded by ignorance.

On January 7, 2017, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with former JAG E. Allen Chandler of Firearms Legal Protection and King Shooters Supply, will provide an hour and a half seminar on what happens after you use your firearm in Pennsylvania. For only $10, you will be provided information on the legal consequences of a violent encounter and how to avoid common mistakes that can cost you money, and even your freedom, if you should become involved in a self-defense situation.

All attendees must per-register, and if there is extensive demand, we may schedule another seminar later in the day. To register, simply visit King Shooter Supply’s website.

Brought to you by your PA Firearms Lawyer® and your PA Gun Attorney® and home of the Armor Piercing Arguments®.

Due to overwhelming demand, as the first seminar on January 7, 2017, from 10-11:30 sold out, we have added a second, identical, seminar from 12-1:30.

For those unaware of the seminar, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., in conjunction with former JAG E. Allen Chandler of Firearms Legal Protection and King Shooters Supply, will provide an hour and a half seminar on what happens after you use your firearm in Pennsylvania. For only $10, you will be provided information on the legal consequences of a violent encounter and how to avoid common mistakes that can cost you money, and even your freedom, if you should become involved in a self-defense situation.

All attendees must per-register, and if there is extensive demand, we may schedule another seminar later in the day. To register, simply visit King Shooter Supply’s website.

Brought to you by your PA Firearms Lawyer® and your PA Gun Attorney® and home of the Armor Piercing Arguments®.

As our viewers are aware, I was previously successful in establishing a right to relief in a Second Amendment as-applied challenge involving a mental health commitment – Monumental Decision from the Middle District of Pennsylvania Regarding Mental Health Commitments and the Second Amendment. Thereafter, the U.S. Government filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court, where the case is currently pending briefing.

Today, the U.S. Government filed a notice with the Third Circuit that the Acting Solicitor General has elected not to sustain the appeal and the Government will be seeking to withdraw the matter in 30 days, as the Government must provide the U.S. Congress with 30 days notice, for the U.S. Congress to intervene if it sees fit. A copy of the letter sent to Speaker Paul Ryan can be downloaded here.

Accordingly, it appears that in 30 days, the appeal will be withdrawn and the only remaining issue will be the attorney fees and costs to be assessed against the Government.

If you have been denied your inalienable right to Keep and Bear Arms as the result of a mental health commitment or non-violent misdemeanor offense, contact us today to discuss your options. Together, we can vindicate YOUR rights!

Late last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision in In re: Nancy White Vencil, 90 MAP 2015, which overturned the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s learned decision finding that a challenge, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(2), to the sufficiency of an involuntary commitment was to be de novo, supported by clear and convincing evidence, where the burden was, in essence, to rest with the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately, the PA Supreme Court vacated the decision as it concluded that the Superior Court erred since, in its opinion

the plain language of section 6111.1(g)(2) requires a court of common pleas to review only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 302 commitment, limited to the information available to the physician at the time he or she made the decision to commit the individual, viewed in the light most favorable to the physician as the original decision-maker to determine whether his or her findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Although the Court acknowledged that “By legislative design, there is no judicial involvement in the decision to effectuate a 302 commitment and no right to appeal the physician’s decision” and therefore affords no due process (an issue which Mrs. Vencil apparently failed to raise (pdf pg. 18 (declaring “Vencil has not challenged the due process protections provided by Section 302 of the MHPA. Nor has she raised a due process argument in connection with her right to keep and bear arms under the United States and/or Pennsylvania Constitutions)), the Court declared that a trial court is only

to review the physician’s findings, made at the time of the commitment, to determine whether the evidence known by the physician at the time, as contained in the contemporaneously-created records, supports the conclusion that the individual required commitment under one (or more) of the specific, statutorily-defined circumstances.

Interestingly, the Court did not address the sufficiency/review of the requisite records for an involuntary commitment, pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7302 and the implementing regulations. This is likely due to this issue not having been raised and therefore was not considered by the Court.

The Court went on to declare that

The Legislature could have broadly created an appeals process under the MHPA for 302 commitments, but it did not; it could have required a de novo hearing but it did not. Instead, it narrowly provided that under 6111(g)(2) of the Uniform Firearms Act, a petitioner is entitled only to have a trial court review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the commitment was based.

It is also important to note that the Court recognized in fn. 4 (pdf pg. 7) that the Pennsylvania State Police waived any consideration of the statute of limitations. The Court’s acknowledgment of is somewhat concerning as a specific of statute of limitations has not been enacted by the General Assembly and the Court did not specify what the appropriate statute of limitation is for sufficiency challenges to civil mental health commitments.

It is for these reasons, including the lack of requisite due process, that it is imperative that the General Assembly enact a new law regarding mental health commitment appeals, in compliance with all dictates of due process.

As our readers are aware, on December 16, 2016, the Commonwealth Court issued its decision in Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), et al. v. Lower Merion Township, where it held that Lower Merion Township’s preclusion of firearms in township parks was unlawful.

On Friday, January 13, 2017, Lower Merion Township filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was docketed at 36 MAL 2017. Thereafter, on Tuesday, January 17, 2017, the City of Philadelphia and City of Harrisburg filed amicus curiae briefs with the Court, asking it to grant Lower Merion Township’s request and overturn the Commonwealth Court’s decision. Later today, we will file our Answer in opposition to Lower Merion’s request.

Generally, once our Answer is filed, it will take the PA Supreme Court between 6 to 8 months, if not more, to decide whether to hear Lower Merion’s appeal and if it grants Lower Merion’s appeal, what legal issues it agrees to consider.

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 us today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

To the surprise of many, The Washington Post reported that it obtained a recording of a closed-door meeting of GOP members that occurred on Thursday in the City of Philadelphia. The article even quotes statements made during the closed-door meeting, seemingly ignorant of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to intercept, endeavor to intercept, procure, disclose, endeavor to disclose, use, or endeavor to use an oral communication without that person’s consent. Specifically, 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

(1)  intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;

(2)  intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or

(3)  intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

While there exists exceptions for law enforcement and other non-applicable bases, the individual who recorded the meeting, anyone who solicited the person to record the meeting, and those individuals and entities which have disclosed and used the recording have clearly committed a felony of the 3rd degree, which permits the individual to be imprisoned for up to 7 years. Moreover, if the individual is a state official or employee, he/she is to be dismissed or removed from office.

Furthermore, there exists civil penalties, which include “actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $ 100 a day for each day of violation, or $ 1,000, whichever is higher;” “punitive damages” and “reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.”

Accordingly, I am calling on Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams and PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro to open an investigation into these violation of our laws.

Today, the Superior Court, en banc, issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Goslin, 1114 MDA 2015, regarding whether an individual is entitled to claim the defense of “other lawful purpose” when carrying a weapon on school grounds.

As our viewers are aware, after the original devastating decision was issued by the Superior Court holding that one could not possess a weapon on school grounds, unless it was related to a school activity, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince contacted Mr. Goslin and offered to represent him in petitioning the Superior Court to reconsider his case, en banc, and permit re-briefing and oral argument. After filing the motion for reconsideration, the Superior Court vacated its prior decision, granted reconsideration, en banc, and permitted the parties to re-brief the matter and to argue the matter at oral argument. Thereafter, Chief Counsel Prince re-briefed the matter and attended oral argument.

Today, the Superior Court, en banc, without any dissenting opinions, filed its decision vacating the trial court’s finding of guilt and declaring:

We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that the language of Section 912(c) is vague.
Rather, we conclude that, in order to ascertain the meaning of Section 912(c), we need not look beyond its plain language. The plain meaning of Section 912(c) provides two separate defenses: possessing and using a weapon on school property “in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity” as well as possessing “for other lawful purpose.” (emphasis added, as Chief Counsel Prince specifically argued this exact construction and noted the different verbs utilized related to the different provisions)

Consistent therewith, the court declared that:

for purposes of the instant case, the plain meaning of the phrase “other lawful purpose” is an aim or goal different from, or in addition to, an aim or goal described in the first clause of Section 912(c), i.e., in conjunction with “a lawful supervised school activity or course.” The second clause of this subsection, thus, serves as a catchall provision.

Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the “other lawful purpose” language does not restrict the defense provided in Section 912(c). Instead, the 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 of whether it is school-related. (emphasis added, as Chief Counsel Prince additionally argued this construction of the statute).

The Superior Court also included a footnote declaring:

Although we are concerned about individuals possessing weapons on school property, we are bound by the broad defense that the legislature has provided defendants in such cases.

As our readers are aware, unfortunately,  Mr. Goslin was not in a position to fund this litigation and his costs will continue to accrue, as the case is now remanded back to the trial court. Therefore, if you are in a position to be able to help fund this monumental victory, 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.

If you or someone you know has been charged with possessing a weapon on school grounds, contact us today to discuss YOUR rights.

As our viewers are aware, earlier, we posted about the Superior Court’s monumental decision in Commonwealth v Goslin, where the court, en banc, held that the “plain meaning of Section 912(c) provides two separate defenses: possessing and using a weapon on school property ‘in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity’ as well as possessing ‘for other lawful purpose’.” (emphasis added)

But what does this mean? What is the impact? And why did the court remand the case to the trial court for a new trial?

First, it is extremely important to note that although this is an extremely favorable decision, the law provides that either of the separate two defenses are just that – defenses. Specifically, Section 912(c) provides:

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.

This means that the Commonwealth can charge you and force you to raise Section 912(c) as a defense and be acquitted by way of the defense, if you are legally entitled to the defense.

But what does that mean? Well, everyone wants bright line rules but unfortunately, in most cases, there aren’t bright line rules, when you wade into the minutiae of scenarios that can arise. So, let’s talk about what are the bright line rules from this decision:

1. If you are prohibited from possessing a certain type of weapon (such as firearms or stun guns), you cannot utilize this defense, as you would not be in lawful possession of the weapon and therefore would not have a lawful purpose.
2. If one is required to have special licensing to possess the weapon (such as a license to carry firearms (“LTCF”)) and you do not have an LTCF, you cannot utilize this defense, as you would not be in lawful possession of the weapon and therefore would not have a lawful purpose.
3. If you intend to commit or actually do use your firearm to commit a crime on school grounds, you cannot utilize this defense, as you would have an unlawful purpose.

But, what if I am not prohibited from possessing a certain type of weapon, have the requisite licensing (if any) to possess the weapon and am carrying the weapon for purposes of self-defense, can I possess the weapon on school grounds?

Based on this decision (and other arguments under the PA and US Constitutions), you would be entitled to the defense found in Section 912(c); however, as mentioned above, nothing would prevent the District Attorney from charging you and forcing you to prove your defense. Now, that being said, few law enforcement officers are going to want to charge someone in this situation, because if they do, and the charges are dismissed or you are acquitted, you can bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against them for violating your rights.

Ok, but what if I need to utilize the weapon I am carrying on school grounds, let’s say for purpose of self-defense?

Here, while there are great arguments – arguments that we raised in our briefing – the decision does not address whether someone possessing a weapon for “other lawful purposes” may use it. In fact, a significant portion of my argument was that the General Assembly utilized different verbs for the different clauses. Specifically, you will see that the General Assembly permitted both use and possession in relation to a “lawful supervised school activity or course” (due to school shooting teams, Boy Scouts…etc, which actively possess and use weapons on school grounds) but only specified possession in relation to “other lawful purpose.” Moreover, as Mr. Goslin was not required to use the pocketknife that he lawfully possessed, this was not an issue before the court. That being said, if an individual, who possessed the weapon for purposes of self-defense, later used that weapon on school grounds for purposes of self-defense, there are great constitutional and statutory arguments that one can make to permit the use of the weapon in that limited circumstance.

Accordingly, the key points are that anyone lawfully possessing a weapon on school grounds ensure that they are possessing it for a lawful purpose (e.g. self-defense) and they understand that they can be charged with violating Section 912 and forced to argue the defense under Section 912(c).

So why did the Superior Court remand this case to the trial court?

Well, although the record establishes that Mr. Goslin lawfully possessed his knife, the trial court never addressed whether he lawfully possessed his knife, as it held that he wasn’t entitled to the defense since his possession of the knife was not related to a school activity. It is for that reason that the Superior Court remanded it back to the trial for a new trial. However, since posting our article on the decision, the District Attorney reached out to me and advised that they do not plan to appeal and intend to nolle prosequi (in essence, dismiss) the charges against Mr. Goslin. Accordingly, Mr. Goslin will not have go through another trial or file additional motions.

As our readers are aware, unfortunately,  Mr. Goslin was not in a position to fund this litigation. Therefore, if you are in a position to be able to help fund this monumental victory, 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.

If you or someone you know has been charged with possessing a weapon on school grounds, contact us today to discuss YOUR rights.

Yesterday, in a very short non-precedential opinion, a three judge panel of the Superior Court held in Commonwealth v. William Battle that a switchblade is not protected by the Second Amendment.

As discussed in the decision, there is no dispute that upon entering the Pike County Administrative Building, Mr. Battle emptied his pockets, including a switchbade knife, at the metal detectors and was thereafter arrested. The sole issue that he raised on appeal was: “Whether the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, in prohibiting the possession of automatic knives, violates the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?” Interestingly, it does not appear that an argument was raised in relation to Article 1, Section 21, although I cannot honestly state that I believe the outcome would have been any different.

In the 5 page decision, for which the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent Second Amendment holding Caetano v. Massachusetts is not mentioned (and causes me to wonder whether Mr. Battle’s public defender addressed it- UPDATE: Battle’s attorney Jason Ohliger confirmed below in the comments that he did raise it and it was central to his argument), the Superior Court declares that “Appellant’s reliance on Heller is misplaced, as offensive weapons are not covered by the constitutional right to bear arms.”

In what can only be described as a twisted form of logic to support its conclusion, the court states that since switchblades “are not possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” they are considered dangerous and unusual weapons. Thus, by the mere fact that the General Assembly declared them unlawful – thereby preventing individuals from lawfully possessing switchblades – the court contends that switchblades are not possessed by law-abiding individuals. Does that make your head hurt? Cause it does mine.

In essence, if the court’s logic was correct, then D.C.’s ban that was struck down in Heller as unconstitutional, should have been declared constitutional, since it was unlawful for any law-abiding individual to possess an operable firearm in his/her home in D.C. Also lost on the court is the fact that only 15 states ban switchblades, with the remaining finding that they do have a common lawful purpose. Unfortunately, I doubt this was brought to the court’s attention. UPDATE: Contrary to my assumption, Battle’s attorney Jason Ohliger confirmed below in the comments that he reviewed which states permit vs. which states do not permit switchblades.

The only saving grace is that this decision was a non-precedential decision by a three judge panel. Pursuant to the Superior Court’s Internal Operating Procedure 65.37:

An unpublished memorandum decision shall not be relied upon or cited by a Court or a party in any other action or proceeding, except that such a memorandum decision may be relied upon or cited (1) when it is relevant under the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel, and (2) when the memorandum is relevant to a criminal action or proceeding because it recites issues raised and reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant in a prior action or proceeding. When an unpublished memorandum is relied upon pursuant to this rule, a copy of the memorandum must be furnished to the other party to the Court.

If you have been charged with carrying a switchblade, contact us today to discuss your legal options.

We are proud to announce that Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG)® (FICG®) and Stone Mountain Tactical, LLC will be hosting our 2nd annual Next EVOLUTION machinegun shoot at The Shooters Gauntlet on June 3-4, 2017, in celebration of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, and Article 1, Section 21 of the PA Constitution. Last year, with the assistance of our great friends at USA Chemical, we broke the world record with a 600 lbs binary explosion…just wait to see what we have scheduled for this year. (UPDATE – as a teaser, there will be  a 20MM machine gun and two mini rail guns, one shoots a cyclic rate of 2500 RPM, the other 4000 RPM…and we’re just getting started!).

Located deep in the endless mountains of Pennsylvania (directions below), about 4 hours northwest of NYC, 3 hours north of Harrisburg, PA, in the town of Monroeton PA, 18832, our 2nd annual next evolution machinegun shoot will offer shooting experiences that are not available anywhere else! If you haven’t registered yet, you can do so here! The admission cost is drastically reduced for those registering in advance and you’ll receive updates and notices about special events, shooting experiences and local hotel deals.

The shooting experiences available include:

1. Main machinegun range, approximately 200 yards long and 75-100-125 yards deep!;
2. Separate, secluded, silencer-only range (where manufacturers such as Liberty, Sig Silencers, SilencerCo, Thunderbeast…etc will be demoing their products);
3. 1100 yards range and ability to rent a 50. caliber Barrett;
4. Engage target while traveling down a zip line;
5. Engage target while hanging upside down from the inversion wall; and
6. Go off the grid and engage targets during the assault hike!

Additionally, as ATF has already approved the event as a sanctioned event, there will be a gun show section for vendors to sell firearms and parts! All applicable local, state and federal laws apply, including applicable state tax regulations.

As Firearm Industry vendors, representatives and personalities register, we will post a new article specifying all of those who are set to attend! Last year, the vendors included (and we anticipate them attending this year!):

• 2A Armament
• Allstar Tactical
• Alpha Dog Silencers
• AutoTargets
• B5 Systems
• Breach Bang Clear
• Cole-Tac
• Dead Air Silencers
• Dennis A. Todd
• Down Range Firearms Training
• Firearms Radio Network
• Four Guys Guns
• Gemtech
• Kinetic Development Group
• Lancer Systems
• Liberty Suppressors
• LWRC
• Markland Photography
• Modern American Safety & Firearms
• Personal Protection Institute
• Patriot Patch, Co.
• OTIS
• Rockwell Tactical Group
• Sarco Inc.
• SilencerCo
• Sheaffer Precision Gunworks (SPG)
• Tactical AR500 Targets
• The Gun Collective
• Tew’s Armory
• USA Chemical Supply
• WM Tactical
• YHM

We also anticipate a number of raffles/giveaways like last year and will post about them as we approach the shoot.

As the sponsors of this event are extremely supportive of the youth-shooting experience, we worked tirelessly with NUMEROUS insurance carriers to obtain coverage for minors to be able to attend. Accordingly, minors will be permitted to attend the event, where those 14 years of age and older accompanied by a parent/guardian will be permitted to shoot, except for machine guns and canons. Those under 14 year of age, who are accompanied by a parent/guardian, will only be permitted to observe. Unfortunately, due to the requirements of the insurance carrier, all minors will have to produce a Government document (e.g. birth certificate, passport…etc) stating their date of birth.

Also, there will be food available onsite!

Accommodations: Special hotel accommodations have been negotiated, which you will be informed of after registering.

Local Directions: The Shooters Gauntlet, LLC is located on Millstone Road, Monroeton, PA 18332. From the Towanda PA area:

At the intersection of route 220 and route 414, take route 414 west (route 414 begins here) for appx. 2.6 miles. Turn left onto Brocktown Rd. (sign here for RODS GARAGE) for  appx 0.2 miles to Weston Rd, turn right. Continue on Weston Rd. for 1.6 miles, and then turn left over bridge onto Millstone Rd. Follow Millstone Rd appx. 2.2 miles to intersection, turn left over bridge remaining on Millstone Rd. You will see the signs and receive direction from there

NOTE: For the Stone Mountain Machine Gun Event, follow signs for parking when on Millstone Road. There will be parking attendants to assist you. As for the events that take place during the Stone Mountain Machine Gun Event that require 4wd, all transportation to and from those events will be provided. Attendees will not be allowed to drive there own vehicles off road due to high traffic and time constraints.

If you haven’t registered, what are you waiting for?!?! Come on out, get your machinegun on and meet FICG® Chief Counsel and your PA Gun Attorney®, Joshua Prince, as well as, our other FICG® attorneys, while enjoying the rich seclusion that Shooters Gauntlet has to offer.

Brought to you by your PA Gun Attorney® and PA Firearms Lawyer®, as well as, the home of Armor Piercing Arguments®.

Be sure to share this event with your family, friends and anyone you know who loves guns!

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 240-175, with numerous Democrats voting in support, on H.R. 1181 – Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from stripping a veteran’s right to Keep and Bear Arms in the absence of an order or finding by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority that such veteran is a danger to himself or herself or others.

Specifically, H.R. 1181 provides:

Notwithstanding any determination made by the Secretary under section 5501A of this title, in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.

It now moves to the Senate for approval, where we need YOUR support. Please contact your U.S. Senators and tell them to SUPPORT H.R. 1181.

As many of you are aware, I recently detailed a client’s putative loss of his Second Amendment rights through the VA, because the VA, sua sponte and in the absence of any form of due process, elected to place him into “supervised direct payment status.”

It is imperative that we protect our veterans and enact H.R. 1181! Please take a few minutes out of your day to contact your Senators and let them know that it is time that we treat our veterans with the respect and dignity they deserve and ensure the protection of their constitutional rights – the rights that they have steadfastly defended of ours. Our veterans are not second-class citizens and our Senators need to know that we’ll defend their rights, just as they’ve been willing to sacrifice everything to preserve our rights.

On April 15, 2017, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince, Attorney Eric Winter and Attorney Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) in conjunction with Rockwell Tactical, will offer a four (4) hour seminar on state and federal firearms law at the DoubleTree Resort at 2400 Willow Street Pike, Lancaster, PA 17602.

The cost is $20 and you should register early, as the classes sell out fast! To register or to find out further information, check out Rockwell Tactical’s registration page.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact Rockwell Tactical at info@rockwelltactical.com or 717-405-2999.

Today, Representative Russ Diamond and 20 pro-Second Amendment/Article 1, Section 21 Representatives submitted a new bill, HB 918, which would remove the character and reputation / good cause provision of 18 Pa.C.S. 6109. Many issuing authorities, like Philadelphia and Monroe have utilized the character and reputation provision to prevent law-abiding individuals from obtaining an LTCF.

Representative Diamond’s memo details how a young lady, who has no criminal or mental health background,  was granted an LTCF in one county and after moving to another county, denied her renewal. (Although it was in a different county, since she had a valid LTCF at the time of application, the law supports that such was a renewal, even though with a different issuing authority.) Furthermore, Representative Diamond’s memo explains how the character and reputation clause is violative of Article 2, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as it is an unlawful delegation of power, supported by legions of PA Supreme Court case law.

Please support HB 918 by contacting your Pennsylvania Representatives and requesting that they co-sponsor or support HB 918. Together, we can remove this unconstitutional provision that permits the unequal application of the law and preempt issuing authorities from revoking resident’s Article 1, Section 21 rights!

Today, the Maryland State Police certified Chief Counsel Joshua Prince, of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., as a qualified handgun instructor for the state of Maryland, which permits him to instruct Handgun Qualification License applicants and Handgun Wear and Bear applicants.

As many of our viewers are aware, Chief Counsel Prince recently took the grueling Maryland Bar Exam to begin practicing firearms law and defending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the state courts throughout Maryland. He also looks forward to working with the Legislature to amend Maryland’s Constitution to provide an explicit state constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms, since the Maryland courts have previously held in Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 880 A.2d 1137 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005) that Article 28 of the Maryland Constitution does not provide an individual right.

Please join us in congratulating Chief Counsel Prince on this achievement!

Firearms Industry Consulting Group® and FICG® are registered trademarks of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C.

Prince Law Offices, P.C. is licensed to use these trademarks, in accordance with Civil Rights Defense Firm’s approval.

Today, in an 8-3 vote, the Senate Local Government Committee passed an extremely important firearm and ammunition preemption bill – Senate Bill 5 – which in addition to reaffirming/strengthening preemption would also provide for attorney fees and costs, where a local government violates the preemption statute.  Senate Bill 5 will now go to the Senate floor for consideration.

We can pass preemption with a veto proof majority, but we need YOUR help! Please contact your state Senator and urge them to support Senate Bill 5!  Please take the time to email, fax or call your Senator and do not use form letters/requests, as they are generally ignored. Our Representatives know when an issue is so important to you that you take the time to personally and respectfully contact them.

Together, we can ensure that our rights under Article 1, Section 21 are not questioned!

Yesterday, Reporter Stephanie Farr of Philly.com reported on an incident, where allegedly Mr. Domonique Jordan, an adult aide to a special-needs student, brought a firearm to the Drexel Hill Middle School. Apparently, Mr. Jordan has been charged with possession of a firearm on school property, even though, such charging would appear contrary to the en banc decision I recently obtained from the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Goslin. Regardless, in her article, she states, “Jordan, an employee with Staffing Plus of Haverford, has a concealed-carry weapons permit and an Act 235 permit, which is issued to security guards by state police, [Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael] Chitwood said.”

Unfortunately for Superintendent Chitwood and Reporter Farr, all license to carry firearms information is confidential and the disclosure of such is a felony of the third degree and also carries with it civil penalties. Specifically, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(3.1) provides

Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree.

For those unaware, Section 6109 is the statutory section regarding the issuance of licenses to carry firearms. Section 6111(i) further provides, in pertinent part,

All information provided by the … applicant, including, but not limited to, the … applicant’s name or identity, furnished by … any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, … State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.

As our viewers are aware, I previously litigated a class action against the City of Philadelphia for disclosing confidential license to carry firearms applicant information which resulted in a $1.5 million dollar settlement and also secured a major victory, where the Commonwealth Court held that the use of un-enveloped postcards, which contain license to carry firearms applicant information, is a violation of the confidentiality provisions.

It will be interesting to see whether Superintendent Chitwood and Reporter Farr are held accountable. While Reporter Farr may have been unaware (even though ignorance of the law is not a defense), there is no reason for Superintendent Chitwood to not have been aware of the law.

If your confidential license to carry firearms applicant information has been disclosed, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., to discuss your legal rights.

Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademarkand division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

As our readers are likely aware, I have frequently addressed Philadelphia’s arrogance and non-compliance with Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6101, et seq. and have sued them several times in relation thereto, including a prior class action that resulted in a $1.45 million dollar settlement and numerous policy changes. However, I truly believe that we must acknowledge when they take positive steps towards ensuring compliance, even if, there are other issues, where they still are not compliant with the law.

Although I will not disclose the name of the individual within the Gun Permit Unit (commonly referred to as the “GPU”), I can state that there is at least one individual, who holds a significant position within the GPU, who believes that everyone eligible should have at least one firearm and a license to carry firearms (“LTCF”). This individual has been working behind the scenes to change the GPU’s policies that we constantly complain about and which are contrary to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109.

Most recently, I learned that the GPU started tracking the dates of LTCF applications to ensure determinations on licenses are made within 45 calendar days. The GPU worked closely with its IT department, so that it can generate spreadsheets reflecting, among other things, (1) the date of application; (2) deadline date (e.g. 45 calendar days from date of application); (3) the date of PICS denial (if any); (4) date of denial by City (if such occurs); (5) date notification is sent to the applicant; (6)  the date issued; and (7) the elapsed time. This information is frequently being reviewed by an individual in the GPU to ensure the GPU’s  compliance with Section 6109 and to benchmark their processing of LTCFs.

It is my understanding that this was first implemented in March 2017 and that for March the average elapsed time was 28 days! More surprising, although we’re only half way through April, it is my understanding that the average determination time is 14 days! This is a MONUMENTAL improvement that should not go unnoticed. While this doesn’t mean that such is guaranteed to continue or that there won’t be outliers, it is extremely promising.

I also understand that all GPU employees have been trained that if an applicant comes in at or after the 45 day mark and his/her application has not been processed that the file is to be immediately pulled and determination made, which is again a monumental improvement.

Please join me in thanking the GPU in implementing these changes and safeguards to their practices involving the issuance of LTCFs (I bet you never thought you’d hear me say that!).

If you have questions about applying for an LTCF, had your LTCF denied or revoked or had your confidential LTCF applicant information disclosed, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., to discuss your legal rights.

Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademarkand division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.