Pennsylvania Sheriff Sued for Violating Second AND Fourth Amendment
Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that anti-gunners won’t shred?
When America’s Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they didn’t do it willy-nilly. They carefully considered all of the ways that a tyrannical government–like the one they had just defeated–could abuse its populace. Then they wrote rules to make such abuse extremely difficult. Simply put, the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments work together to protect each other (and you). That’s why, when anti-gunners start infringing on the Second Amendment, they generally have to infringe on the First and Fourth, too. Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is demanding that Pennsylvania’s Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office explain why it’s conducting warrantless searches. (The answer, by the way, is “Because we figured nobody would sue us. Oops.”)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a challenge of Pennsylvania’s promulgated firearms regulation and its enforcement by the Pennsylvania State Police and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, which includes warrantless searches.
SAF is joined by Shot Tec, LLC and a private citizen, Grant Schmidt. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Dillon Harris, Civil Rights Defense Firm, of Bechtelsville, Pa. Defendants are Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny, in their official capacities. The action was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
The petition challenges Col. Paris and the PSP’s “interpretation, implementation and enforcement” of the firearms regulation “which is being enforced” by Kilkenny, according to the court filing. The petition alleges that Sheriff Kilkenny “has implemented a policy…which he contends, based on the PSP’s promulgation and implementation of (the regulation) permit him, in the absence of probable cause and a warrant and in violation of…the Pennsylvania Constitution, to come into those…homes or business.”
Plaintiffs further assert this inspection enables the sheriff to impose sanctions against holders of state licenses to sell firearms “for not having ‘safe storage’” in the event of an emergency when the PSP has “failed to promulgate any regulations addressing what constitute ‘safe storage’ or sufficient safeguards…when the General Assembly only delegated to the PSP the ability to establish such standards.”
“The State Assembly has never enacted a law allowing for warrantless searches of licensees, but the state police promulgated a regulation requiring licensees to submit to such searches, which are now planned by the sheriff’s department,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We believe there are grave constitutional issues involved in this scheme, particularly when an administrative agency simply waives an individual’s constitutional rights by implementing a regulation without any framework from the legislature. Equally troubling is the Sheriff’s assertion that he would revoke a license from and individual asserting their right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. We have filed this petition to ensure constitutional rights are respected.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed, “No statute should allow carte blanche regulations to be imposed by any law enforcement agency because of the inherent danger of overstepping legal authority and constitutional protections which must be protected in a free society. We’re seeking a remedy from the court to stop this, especially when warrantless searches are involved.”
Reader Favorites
Firearms reference desk
Plain-English references worth bookmarking — the gear terms behind every review, plus NFA and carry law.
| Term | Category |
|---|---|
| Striker-fired | Action |
| MOA | Optics |
| Twist rate | Ballistics |
30 gun, ammo and optics terms explained in plain English.
Open the glossary → Network| 2026 at a glance | |
|---|---|
| NFA tax stamp | $0 |
| Permitless carry | 29 states |
| Suppressors legal | 42 states |
50+ NFA, carry and gun-law terms, from Freedom's Lodge.
View full chart →
Even in the military, soldiers have a choice to follow orders or not to follow them, if the orders are against the military rules of engagement or human rights. Like if ordered to kill unarmed, non military adults and children, just to send a message. The sheriff and state police had a choice and chose to ignore the constitution and bill of rights. So the ” in their official capacity ” should not count in court for things like this. They need to be fired first and then nailed to the wall with the MAX for these kind of offenses, ignoring our constitutional rights. They are nothing but totalitarian strong arms, bullying the people, they swore to protect.
There is. Fire them, then throw them in jail.
Great idea, the people that violate the constitution and amendments should pay with their money not taxpayers.
unfortunately, when sued in their “official capacity” the taxpayers pay the legal fees and penalties. There needs to be a way to force the violators of the Constitution to personally pay the price. Otherwise the abuses continue as there is no penalty to the perpetrators. Eventually the plaintiffs run out of money and that is the plan.