2 charged in Big Ed's fireworks seizure
Two Cambria County men each face a misdemeanor charge in connection with illegal fireworks that were seized from an Indiana County business in early July.
Mark Edward Gibson and Kris Shoff, both 48, are accused of selling consumer fireworks without a license at Big Ed's Outlet in Burrell Township.
Undercover state troopers investigating a complaint purchased illegal fireworks July 1 at the store for $30 from Shoff, who was working there, according to an affidavit of probable cause.
Police seized thousands of dollars worth of illegal fireworks, $910, a cash register receipt and three wall signs. The pyrotechnics lined several shelves at the store, which specializes in exotic glass tobacco pipes.
The pyrotechnics included firecrackers, Roman candles and other airborne fireworks.
Store owner Gibson said he thought the sales were legal.
“I honestly thought we'd done right,” he said on Tuesday. “Next year, we'll be able to do the right thing.”
The store sold the same fireworks in 2012 without any problems, he said.
Police said Gibson and Shoff, both of Portage, were cooperative.
Pennsylvania law states that any fireworks that shoot into the air and explode are illegal for use by consumers. Aerial-based pyrotechnics are sold at facilities licensed by the state and can be purchased only by out-of-state residents with identification or Pennsylvania residents with a municipal permit, according to state police.
Preliminary hearings for both men are scheduled for Aug. 28 before District Judge Jennifer Rega.
Renatta Signorini is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.