Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
by: James Stoker
Adventures in misinformed solicitors. Our organization could write a book on the topic. Every regular citizen in the Commonwealth can read the words:
“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.”
I do not think you need to be an attorney to understand that it tells municipal governments to stay away from our Article I Section 21 right to bear arms.
This afternoon I received an email from lifetime FOAC member Karen Kiefer. Karen had reached out to long-time FOAC Board Members and Vice-President Chip Gallo. Chip sent her my way and Karen informed us that her cousin, Jan Kiefer, had reached out to her asking for help dealing with a potential ordinance proposal in Scottdale Borough, about an hour southwest of Pittsburgh. I must admit I was stunned at first. Scottdale? Westmoreland County? The 58th district? Not only is it Rep. Eric Davanzo’s district, but his office is in their building. Rep. Davanzo is a 2A stalwart! Steadfast in not only his defense of our rights but a proponent trying to expand upon them. The entirety of Westmoreland County is represented by pro-2A representatives… Major, Nelson, Cooper, Rossi, Dunbar, and of course, Davanzo… all outstanding on 2A issues. Hell the 2nd Amendment Caucus might as well have an office there. Reaching out to Rep. Davanzo found him just as stunned as I was.
A phone call to the borough manager discovered there was a request by a council member to propose banning the carry of firearms on borough property and that it was on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. Keep in mind this is not all of the board, and a manager must include topics any councilperson wants on their agenda for discussion. This was clearly put forth by someone underinformed on firearms laws. I would argue on firearms in general because they clearly do not realize such ordinances merely leave good people defenseless and do nothing to stop criminals. And there’s the catch, isn’t it? We have people in positions of authority speaking up on topics they are uneducated on, especially when it comes to firearms and the laws addressing them. No matter how hard our organization tries, no matter how many times we crisscross the Commonwealth, there will always be those speaking out on topics they know nothing about. What is more disturbing to me is that a solicitor, a borough’s legal consultant, would not have been consulted first and put a stop to this even being added to the agenda. Though it does not surprise me, having had a solicitor I know personally ignore my repeated efforts to educate him on the matter, even handing him the case law.
Now this piece is not about slamming the good people of Scottdale. It’s about the lack of knowledge out there regarding our Constitutions. Of both the Commonwealth and the nation. It’s about my concern that the people giving legal advice to these governing bodies are NOT educated enough on this topic and in my experience, don’t seem inclined to admit as much and seek guidance before weighing in with their opinions on the matter. There are plenty out there who are knowledgeable on the topic, I am sure, but there are plenty who know nothing, as is evident by our continuous filing of lawsuits and letters to municipal governments.
We sent a letter to the manager at the Borough explaining the potential criminal violation her council was about to discuss. She promised to present it to the council and the solicitor at the meeting, and I believed her. I also promised her I would be in attendance tonight, and she welcomed the presence, as navigating these topics can be difficult for a manager in the employ of elected officials who do not understand the line they are about to cross.
I made the trip to the borough building and met both Jan Kiefer, the person who had informed us via his cousin of the proposal, and Director Lizzie Jackovich, who had volunteered to stand as well. We spoke to a councilmember who had correctly identified this is out of the purview of their council, and the manager who had copied the letter and shared it with the solicitor and the council. We were informed by the manager that the only place we could publicly comment at the meeting was at the comment section at the end, as they reserve the first comment section for pre-registered speakers. That’s a different argument, but the borough is permitted to restrict speakers to residents or taxpayers only, so I agreed to take what I was being given.
The meeting room was small but packed full of residents. Their council took their seats and began the meeting. I try to remember that these are often good people who have committed their time and sometimes their sanity to working for their community for next to nothing or even no compensation. (Hence my leaving names out of this piece.) When the topic of a “No Gun Policy on Borough Property” came up for discussion, there was a brief discussion in which it was apparent that most of the council wanted nothing to do with it. One councilperson stated he felt things had been “blown out of proportion,” though how infringing upon someone’s rights with a government overreach could possibly be blown out of proportion at this point I have no idea. I believe his intention was to say that the majority of council wasn’t seriously considering this, despite it being on the agenda and they didn’t expect the reaction they were getting. Another councilperson repeated that they cannot supersede state law on the topic, and that is when things went sideways. Their solicitor spoke up stating that is not necessarily the case. He stated that they may be able to as they own the parks and the borough building, and that he had seen the letter “some organization” had sent in and he does not think it applies to them, but that he would have to research it.
Now I bit my tongue. Wasn’t easy. I muttered a few words under my breath, but I held it in. The ignorance in those words nearly pushed me beyond meeting etiquette. I had sent them a three-page letter, sharing the work of Attorney Joshua Prince, that clearly identifies for them that ANY such act is a crime in PA. And here this uninformed solicitor who has not even read the letter wants to discard it for his own opinion when he had just said he would have to investigate it. I was watching a solicitor, the legal advisor for a governing body, not only misinform the body, but put them all at risk for criminal prosecution because he was either too uninformed or too self-important to admit he was not well versed in 18 Pa. C.S. §6120 Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition. Preemption. And sadly, this is all too common. At that point, I must admit, part of me wanted them to do this and let us educate him on exactly who “some organization” was. But to the credit of the borough council, most had more intellectual presence and voted to table the topic despite his words, meaning it died there for all intents and purposes.
When the public comment session began at the end, I was the only request to speak. I used my three-minute window to applaud the council for tabling the motion, informing them as politely as possible that their solicitor was incorrect and that the passing of any such ordinance would be a first-degree misdemeanor criminal act. I offered the help of our organization to them to educate them and any residents they would like on their gun rights and even help the solicitor with finding the materials he would need to understand the firearms laws regarding preemption. I informed them that we do classes for Rep. Davanzo whose office was just down the hall and would gladly help them learn about the topic. And that ended the meeting.
Afterwards, a few members of council and the community spoke to us and thanked us for our time. We spent another half an hour or so answering 2A questions in the room and outside the building before calling it a night and heading home. The people of the community remain a pro-2A group, and I am convinced this was all the result of one undereducated person. But it should concern us all that one uneducated voice can propose such a transgression. One uneducated solicitor can then compound the issue by not understanding the legalities of this topic and failing to quash it before it begins.
I am going to attain a list of solicitors in the Commonwealth. We’re going to e-mail a letter out to each and every one of them to inform them of the preemption law and what it means to protect the rights of every citizen of this Commonwealth. And I am going to keep a record of exactly what firms and attorneys we have provided that information to. Sometimes education can overcome ignorance, and we must take that on as our responsibility to do what we can. We will see who is intentionally misguiding their small governments and investigate whether we can sue the solicitors who are then intentionally misinforming their clients. I know most municipalities will never go against the advice of their solicitor as it opens a plethora of liability issues. It is a criminal act for an attorney to advise their client to commit a crime. Does our documenting them having been informed by us establish proof of their knowledge of such an act? If we can show they were educated on the matter and did it anyway? Perhaps we start going after the solicitors… I know, pipe dream… but we will not know until we try… we’re not allowed to tar and feather anymore!
Special thanks to Karen Kiefer and her cousin Jan Kiefer. We may have prevented a travesty by getting involved early on, and we could only do that thanks to your diligence and efforts.