Attorney Prepares to Challenge Atty Gen Florida LTCF Action

[LBaker]

So the power to enter into an agreement entitles her to renegotiate or rescind previous agreements? Just asking... From the lawmakers I have talked to, that certainly wasn't the intent. At this point, what harm could be done with a lawsuit? Any correction is going to come at the hands of the legislature, right? I'm not being argumentative, just trying to become informed.

[GunLawyer001]

So the power to enter into an agreement entitles her to renegotiate or rescind previous agreements? Just asking... From the lawmakers I have talked to, that certainly wasn't the intent. At this point, what harm could be done with a lawsuit? Any correction is going to come at the hands of the legislature, right? I'm not being argumentative, just trying to become informed.

Courts can do unexpected things. The Legislature clearly didn't want the PSP to maintain any kind of gun registry, but that didn't even slow down the PA Supreme Court from allowing the Record of Sale Database.

What harm could be done? The court could cement the notion that the AG has discretion to amend or discard or nullify these reciprocity agreements, or decide that they will only be honored for some citizens and not others, subject only to a standard of "reasonableness". Me, I think that gun-related issues should be reviewed on a strict scrutiny basis, and any adverse government action must be more than rational or reasonable, it must pass the harsh test of strict scrutiny.

[Adam-12]

She is exercising that power only one month into a four year term. If it's challenged in court, there is a chance that her claim of power will be cemented and a chance that it will be rejected. If it is not challenged, it becomes (already is) a de facto power of the AG. I currently see this situation as one of "you might lose if you try, you will lose if you don't".

GL's point is that making a half-assed attempt is worse than no attempt at all. This is practically guaranteed if the person making the attempt is only in it for self-promotion: doing the job right is not even part of their plans, and it's no skin off their nose if they fail.

We need to beware of thinking, "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." Surprisingly often, "nothing" is precisely the right thing to do.

In this case a successful challenge is the very best thing possible. An effective but ultimately unsuccessful challenge is just a risk you take. But a half-assed challenge would be much worse than nothing at all: it could set precedents that doom future efforts to failure before they even start.

[Mosinshooter762]

Who here is to be the judge of what is going to be a successful challenge before actually going to court?

Something needs to be done about this power grab by the Attorney General. Maybe this would be best addressed by seeking resort in the General Assembly, rather than the judiciary. I would rather see more compelling arguments addressing this and about the best course of action. Instead, it seems to be a debate about who is the best lawyer here.

[RugerNiner]

I meet the criteria of relying solely on my Florida CCW, but I personally think this is going to take a team of lawyers working together for optimum results.

[GunLawyer001]

I meet the criteria of relying solely on my Florida CCW, but I personally think this is going to take a team of lawyers working together for optimum results.

The courts have a pretty bad history for weeding out plaintiffs for lack of standing. Being prevented from doing what you want is often not enough. Look at what happened to the Heller case, which started with 6 plaintiffs and was whittled down to one guy, Heller, 5 out of the 6 being dismissed for lack of standing; just 1 more would have killed the case.

If you had someone prosecuted for carrying with only a Florida license, then he'd have standing to challenge the AG's change. But if he lost, he'd face the M1 or felony charge under the statute. Legal standing can be the weak link in a challenge like this.

[ungawa]

We are not relying on appellate nor "supreme" courts anymore, because they are arbiters of neither justice nor law, and deserve no respect. Do it and get it over with. Win or lose, it's a box and a checkmark on our To Do list. Not a destination, and illegal rulings are not binding as far as I am concerned.

[SigForLife]

While I am not generally inclined to respond, because of the accusations and assertions that have been made, I feel it necessary. First, I have never asked ANYONE on PAFOA for money to fund a suit against Attorney General Kane. I find it deplorable that some on this forum will make assumptions and attack a forum member for posting a link and then insinuate that I either had something to do in the posting of the original post or that I was requesting money from PAFOA members. The OP is due an apology, as am I. I cannot say if the OP is a current/prior client of mine or simply someone who follows the issues, as I do not know the identity of John-PA. I leave it up to him, if he so desires, to provide information in that regard.

Nevertheless, knowing that no apology will be issued to those involved, I am happy to respond to anyone's inquiries, to the extent that I can without violating my ethical obligations or contractual agreements, regarding my cases. I will not post any information from a case unless I have the client's prior permission. If you want to know more about me, I am happy to respond and to clarify the false representations made about me and my history.

I am a 4th generation attorney. I am admitted to the PA Supreme Court, 4 federal district courts, one appellate federal circuit court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. I do work at my father's firm, Prince Law Offices, P.C. that is no secret; however, I have never worked at my grandfather's firm. I have been offered numerous other employment opportunities in PA and several across the US; however, family is important to me. Our family is close and no amount of money would cause me to leave my father's firm. There is something that is to be said for a family that can work together in a high pressure environment, where tempers flair, but I digress. Also, in working at my father's firm, I do have more latitude and ability to take on important cases pro-bono or with limited funding. I take on more cases pro-bono than many attorneys will in their entire careers.

In relations to cases that I have won or my "track record," you will find plenty of PAFOA members that I have represented; however, as I said previously, I will not divulge their information without prior approval, regardless of whether the filings are public. You can find out what my clients think of me here - http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/19505-...e-1936970.html

In regards to track record, as many of you know, I recently handled a case before the Commonwealth Court, Caba v. Weaknecht, where I lost, as the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke my client's LTCF. I have NO doubt that my client did NOT do as was testified to by a biased "witness." I didn't hide my loss from anyone, as I posted about it and the first sentence declares the outcome - http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/02/11...firearms-case/. However, that which appears to be ignored by some is the fact that I was able to obtain new holdings that were never decided by the court. We now have a liberty AND property interest in an issued LTCF. For someone who apparently doesn't know what the hell he is doing, I guess I must have stumbled on that issue, as although there was Potts v. City of Philadelphia (federal case) holding that there exists no property interest in an LTCF, there was absolutely no case law, in the state or federal context, regarding a liberty interest in an LTCF. That liberty interest that was established now sets the foundation for a similar finding where someone applies for and is denied a LTCF (aka, never had an LTCF, so this holding would not apply). But again, I don't know what I am doing. God only knows what Stephen Halbrook was thinking when he petitioned for me to become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court....

Also, since finances have been raised several times, in the above matter, the client was unable to pay but for a portion of the trial, because in litigating it correctly, the discovery requests and litigation took up a decent amount of time. Nevertheless, knowing and believing in my client, I stayed steadfast. I filed the appeal and have represented him pro-bono since, because of the importance of the issues raised and my belief that he did not act in the manner suggested. For those who have ever handled an appeal, they will know that it takes a monumental amount of time. (There is a reason that the attorney fee request in Heller was over 3 million dollars - http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...r-request.html) My brief was 60 pages, with 5 pages of case citations (66 different cases cited not including the statutes and Constitutions); but I have no idea what I am doing. I have filed a motion for reconsideration en banc with the Commonwealth Court, as I do believe they erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

I am also handling the class action lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia for its disclosure of LTCF information. Everyone said I would lose a motion to have the case filed as John Does and the matter sealed, especially because it was in Philadelphia. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they were wrong. I got Judge Tucker to issue the John Doe/sealing Order so now those individual's identities are protected and creates persuasive authority in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for the next person that in a similar situation seeks to have his/her case sealed. No one else with a legal degree from PAFOA stepped up, with the exception of BenGlock, who is now co-counsel. And, once again, I haven't been paid a dime. Anyone who has experience with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas knows that they charge more than any other county to file an action and for each filing in an action. I have over $3k in costs alone and I have never asked anyone for anything. Furthermore, in relation to helping the community, we are already in settlement negotiations and those negotiations include changes to Philadelphia's unlawful current policies. See, I don't want to just get a couple dollars for my clients, I want to change the system for all of those in Philadelphia. I picked Plaintiffs that shared the same view. If I am offered the opportunity to change the unlawful policies, albeit through my own doing, why wouldn't I want to change the atrocities being committed by the PPD and Philadelphia in general?

Recently, when Reed decided to change the terms of the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, people came to me to get it resolved. While my larger client, with $20k+ worth of table space, were promised return of their money, small vendors, who had paid between $3-10k, were being refused, as Reed assumed they would be unable to pay for legal counsel. I would not let that occur. I told all those who were being denied that I would be happy to speak with them and if necessary, represent them. I spent hours upon hours (now you know why I don't post frequently) prior to the SHOT Show, at the SHOT Show and after returning in trying to resolve the situation. When Reed learned that I was prepared to go to court, a decision was made to refund ALL vendors. I never received a dime for all the time I invested; nor did I ever request it. It is MY industry and I won't let such determinations/decisions stand on my watch, while I stand idly by. When others don't want to get involved because it is too difficulty, too complex, or too messy, I roll up my sleeves and get what needs to get done, done.

I also have handle numerous 1983 actions for deprivation of civil rights. The one against Oley Township, where my client was charged for legally carrying his firearm in the PD, has been posted about on this forum previously. I was able to get a settlement for my client and a public acknowledgement by the Township. Several forum members attended the meeting where the public announcement was made.

I have also handled numerous other LTCF denials and revocations and have an extremely high rate of being able to get them resolved without having to go through to decision. The same is true of erroneous PICS denials. When you know PSP's in-house counsel and they know that if you are coming to them, there is a legit issue, it is amazing how issues can be resolved, even after the PSP has issued its final determination and told your client that his/her only option is appeal to the AG. Additionally, I have handled numerous 302 expungements and challenges for both veterans and non-veterans with a high rate of success. As I was able to have all these matter sealed, I will not provide any further info.

In relation to Attorney Kane and the possible suit, there is a reason the NRA is discussing moving forward with a potential action with me.

Lastly, I find it humorous that Attorney Gura is being lauded a god by some, when, as has now been acknowledged by a previous post, he almost lost the entire case over standing. In fact, Gura didn't even see the standing issue coming. There is a reason that Dick Heller was in Stephen Halbrook's office the day after Steve and I attended the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v Heller; Dick had no faith in Gura's ability to handle Heller 2. In fact, as Dick explained, he kept saying that someone needed to attempt to get a permit and be denied but was continually told that he didn't know the law or what he was talking about. Dick didn't listen and went anyway. If he hadn't, we wouldn't be where we are today. Furthermore, many seem to forget that Gura lost at EVERY level, never even achieving a beneficial holding, until he reached the US Supreme Court.

With all of this being said, if you have questions, feel free to contact me directly.

[Mosinshooter762]

While I am not generally inclined to respond, because of the accusations and assertions that have been made, I feel it necessary. First, I have never asked ANYONE on PAFOA for money to fund a suit against Attorney General Kane. I find it deplorable that some on this forum will make assumptions and attack a forum member for posting a link and then insinuate that I either had something to do in the posting of the original post or that I was requesting money from PAFOA members. The OP is due an apology, as am I. I cannot say if the OP is a current/prior client of mine or simply someone who follows the issues, as I do not know the identity of John-PA. I leave it up to him, if he so desires, to provide information in that regard.

Nevertheless, knowing that no apology will be issued to those involved, I am happy to respond to anyone's inquiries, to the extent that I can without violating my ethical obligations or contractual agreements, regarding my cases. I will not post any information from a case unless I have the client's prior permission. If you want to know more about me, I am happy to respond and to clarify the false representations made about me and my history.

I am a 4th generation attorney. I am admitted to the PA Supreme Court, 4 federal district courts, one appellate federal circuit court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. I do work at my father's firm, Prince Law Offices, P.C. that is no secret; however, I have never worked at my grandfather's firm. I have been offered numerous other employment opportunities in PA and several across the US; however, family is important to me. Our family is close and no amount of money would cause me to leave my father's firm. There is something that is to be said for a family that can work together in a high pressure environment, where tempers flair, but I digress. Also, in working at my father's firm, I do have more latitude and ability to take on important cases pro-bono or with limited funding. I take on more cases pro-bono than many attorneys will in their entire careers.

In relations to cases that I have won or my "track record," you will find plenty of PAFOA members that I have represented; however, as I said previously, I will not divulge their information without prior approval, regardless of whether the filings are public. You can find out what my clients think of me here - http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/19505-...e-1936970.html

In regards to track record, as many of you know, I recently handled a case before the Commonwealth Court, Caba v. Weaknecht, where I lost, as the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke my client's LTCF. I have NO doubt that my client did NOT do as was testified to by a biased "witness." I didn't hide my loss from anyone, as I posted about it and the first sentence declares the outcome - http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/02/11...firearms-case/. However, that which appears to be ignored by some is the fact that I was able to obtain new holdings that were never decided by the court. We now have a liberty AND property interest in an issued LTCF. For someone who apparently doesn't know what the hell he is doing, I guess I must have stumbled on that issue, as although there was Potts v. City of Philadelphia (federal case) holding that there exists no property interest in an LTCF, there was absolutely no case law, in the state or federal context, regarding a liberty interest in an LTCF. That liberty interest that was established now sets the foundation for a similar finding where someone applies for and is denied a LTCF (aka, never had an LTCF, so this holding would not apply). But again, I don't know what I am doing. God only knows what Stephen Halbrook was thinking when he petitioned for me to become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court....

Also, since finances have been raised several times, in the above matter, the client was unable to pay but for a portion of the trial, because in litigating it correctly, the discovery requests and litigation took up a decent amount of time. Nevertheless, knowing and believing in my client, I stayed steadfast. I filed the appeal and have represented him pro-bono since, because of the importance of the issues raised and my belief that he did not act in the manner suggested. For those who have ever handled an appeal, they will know that it takes a monumental amount of time. (There is a reason that the attorney fee request in Heller was over 3 million dollars - http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...r-request.html) My brief was 60 pages, with 5 pages of case citations (66 different cases cited not including the statutes and Constitutions); but I have no idea what I am doing. I have filed a motion for reconsideration en banc with the Commonwealth Court, as I do believe they erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

I am also handling the class action lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia for its disclosure of LTCF information. Everyone said I would lose a motion to have the case filed as John Does and the matter sealed, especially because it was in Philadelphia. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they were wrong. I got Judge Tucker to issue the John Doe/sealing Order so now those individual's identities are protected and creates persuasive authority in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for the next person that in a similar situation seeks to have his/her case sealed. No one else with a legal degree from PAFOA stepped up, with the exception of BenGlock, who is now co-counsel. And, once again, I haven't been paid a dime. Anyone who has experience with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas knows that they charge more than any other county to file an action and for each filing in an action. I have over $3k in costs alone and I have never asked anyone for anything. Furthermore, in relation to helping the community, we are already in settlement negotiations and those negotiations include changes to Philadelphia's unlawful current policies. See, I don't want to just get a couple dollars for my clients, I want to change the system for all of those in Philadelphia. I picked Plaintiffs that shared the same view. If I am offered the opportunity to change the unlawful policies, albeit through my own doing, why wouldn't I want to change the atrocities being committed by the PPD and Philadelphia in general?

Recently, when Reed decided to change the terms of the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, people came to me to get it resolved. While my larger client, with $20k+ worth of table space, were promised return of their money, small vendors, who had paid between $3-10k, were being refused, as Reed assumed they would be unable to pay for legal counsel. I would not let that occur. I told all those who were being denied that I would be happy to speak with them and if necessary, represent them. I spent hours upon hours (now you know why I don't post frequently) prior to the SHOT Show, at the SHOT Show and after returning in trying to resolve the situation. When Reed learned that I was prepared to go to court, a decision was made to refund ALL vendors. I never received a dime for all the time I invested; nor did I ever request it. It is MY industry and I won't let such determinations/decisions stand on my watch, while I stand idly by. When others don't want to get involved because it is too difficulty, too complex, or too messy, I roll up my sleeves and get what needs to get done, done.

I also have handle numerous 1983 actions for deprivation of civil rights. The one against Oley Township, where my client was charged for legally carrying his firearm in the PD, has been posted about on this forum previously. I was able to get a settlement for my client and a public acknowledgement by the Township. Several forum members attended the meeting where the public announcement was made.

I have also handled numerous other LTCF denials and revocations and have an extremely high rate of being able to get them resolved without having to go through to decision. The same is true of erroneous PICS denials. When you know PSP's in-house counsel and they know that if you are coming to them, there is a legit issue, it is amazing how issues can be resolved, even after the PSP has issued its final determination and told your client that his/her only option is appeal to the AG. Additionally, I have handled numerous 302 expungements and challenges for both veterans and non-veterans with a high rate of success. As I was able to have all these matter sealed, I will not provide any further info.

In relation to Attorney Kane and the possible suit, there is a reason the NRA is discussing moving forward with a potential action with me.

Lastly, I find it humorous that Attorney Gura is being lauded a god by some, when, as has now been acknowledged by a previous post, he almost lost the entire case over standing. In fact, Gura didn't even see the standing issue coming. There is a reason that Dick Heller was in Stephen Halbrook's office the day after Steve and I attended the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v Heller; Dick had no faith in Gura's ability to handle Heller 2. In fact, as Dick explained, he kept saying that someone needed to attempt to get a permit and be denied but was continually told that he didn't know the law or what he was talking about. Dick didn't listen and went anyway. If he hadn't, we wouldn't be where we are today. Furthermore, many seem to forget that Gura lost at EVERY level, never even achieving a beneficial holding, until he reached the US Supreme Court.

With all of this being said, if you have questions, feel free to contact me directly.

I read the recently published Commonwealth Court opinion in Caba v. Weaknecht. While you may not of 'won' the outcome, this could turn out to be a very significant and important decision. After 25 years to the contrary, the Commonwealth Court seems to have finally recognized that Pennsylvania went shall issue in regards to the issuance and revocation of a License to Carry Firearms. It also recognized that important constitutional protections attach to the revocation process. These protections would also seem to be extended to the issuance process. Your taking on of Philadelphia may also have a very important impact on how the issuance and revocation process is conducted.

I really appreciate what you have done, and what you are doing!

With that said, do you think the Attorney General power grab is best addressed legislatively, or through the courts?

[SigForLife]

With that said, do you think the Attorney General power grab is best addressed legislatively, or through the courts?

The ABSOLUTE best way is it being addressed legislatively, as we would then have control over any current or future AG's powers with no possibility of an out-of-control judge or judges following their political beliefs; however, one must consider what we will end up giving up for that legislative change. The Dems will want something and do we want the power falling back on the Legislature? If the Legislature was responsible for reciprocity agreements, would we ever see a new one?

This is why, in my opinion, the legislature limited the AG's power to entering into new reciprocity agreements and did not grant the power to amend, modify or revoke existing agreements. Also, if I were to file suit, although the primary argument would be that she didn't have the power to enter into the modification, I would plead in the alternative and argue other issues/limitations under Section 6106. I am not going to post about them, as I don't want to tip my hand, but if you read the exceptions to 6106 closely, some interesting issues will appear.