The Second Amendment Foundation and its co-plaintiffs are back before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Schmidt v. Paris, pressing their challenge to a state regulatory scheme that forces firearms dealers to surrender basic constitutional protections to obtain and keep a Pennsylvania license to sell firearms.
At issue is a Pennsylvania State Police regulation, 37 Pa. Code § 33.116, and a Montgomery County policy tied to it. SAF says the scheme requires dealers to submit to warrantless inspections and, in practice, exposes them to detention, questioning, document demands, and potential license consequences for refusing to cooperate. SAF is joined by Shot Tec and private citizen Grant Schmidt, the same plaintiffs named in the original challenge filed in 2023.
In the new filing, SAF argues Pennsylvania law never authorized the State Police to create this kind of warrantless-search regime in the first place. The brief argues the Uniform Firearms Act contains no legislative grant for such inspections and argues that Section 33.116 cannot lawfully create powers the General Assembly never delegated.
SAF’s brief also attacks the scope of the inspection policy itself. The filing says there is “no basis under Section 33.116 for the seizure of the license holder or a representative for one to two hours” or for compelling answers to investigators’ questions, noting that the regulation “only speaks of an ability to ‘inspect,’ not to seize, interview, examine, or otherwise interrogate.” The same section of the brief says the challenged policy demands records such as ATF Form 4473s, multiple-sale reports, and acquisition-and-disposition records that are not required by the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act or its regulations.
That detail matters because SAF is not only making a Second Amendment argument. The reply brief repeatedly frames the case as a Pennsylvania constitutional fight over unlawful searches, seizures, compelled statements, due process, and improper delegation of power to an executive agency. SAF also argues the government cannot force someone to waive constitutional rights as the price of obtaining a business license.
The brief puts a fine point on that claim through plaintiff Grant Schmidt, who wants to operate as a home-based firearms dealer. According to the filing, Schmidt is being forced to choose between abandoning that business plan or accepting a licensing process that “forces him to waive his constitutional rights to be free from searches.” The brief says Schmidt anticipates losing about $50,000 per year if he cannot move forward with the home-based business.
That home-based angle is one of the most significant facts in the case. SAF’s own case summary says the Pennsylvania system would allow officials to conduct warrantless searches of licensed dealers’ businesses, including operations run from private residences, while also permitting seizure of licensees or employees for up to two hours and compelling them to answer questions and produce documentation.
SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack made that point directly in the foundation’s press statement, saying, “Selling guns in accordance with state and federal law does not require that a seller waive their other constitutional rights,” and adding that the searches are “particularly egregious when you consider that many FFL dealers run their business out of their private residence.”
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added that the regulations are “nothing more than an attempt to thwart the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvanians.” Those statements track the broader theory advanced in the court filing: that this is not routine oversight, but government leverage used to condition a firearms license on the surrender of other rights.
The case already produced a notable lower-court ruling. In August 2025, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court granted declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim that Sheriff Sean Kilkenny’s inspection policy violated the non-delegation doctrine and permanently enjoined that policy in its then-current form. At the same time, the court noted that its ruling did not forever bar inspections of licensed gun dealers, only that any such inspections would have to stay within the authority actually delegated by the General Assembly and PSP.
AmmoLand has covered this controversy since the beginning, including earlier reporting on SAF’s original 2023 lawsuit challenging the warrantless search scheme and a later special report on how Montgomery County’s inspection push took shape. Readers who want the foundation’s own case background can also review SAF’s case page for Schmidt v. Paris.
For Pennsylvania gun dealers, especially kitchen-table FFLs and home-based operators, the stakes are obvious.
If SAF prevails, the court could further cabin state and county officials’ ability to use licensing as a back door around warrant requirements. If the state wins, regulators may argue they can keep conditioning a firearms dealer’s livelihood on advance consent to government entry, questioning, and inspection demands. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s handling of Schmidt v. Paris will decide how far that power can go.
