PA Bill Number: SB531
Title: In general provisions, providing for findings regarding firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms and ...
Description: In general provisions, providing for findings regarding firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms a ...
Last Action: Removed from table
Last Action Date: Jul 15, 2020
FOAC Monthly Meeting - 08/9/2020
South Fayette Township Municipal Bldg. 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA
Concealed Carry Seminar Hosted by PA State Rep. Eric Davanzo - 08/13/2020
West Newton Sportsmen's Club 35 Sportsmans Rd, West Newton, PA
FOAC Monthly Meeting - 09/13/2020
South Fayette Township Municipal Bldg. 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA
FOAC's May 10th Meeting Notice w-Linked Agenda :: 05/09/2020
The May FOAC Membership Meeting (May 10th) will be held once again online for all members and interested Second Amendment advocates. As we noted last month, because of the stay-at-home order of Gov. Wolf (which has been extended until June 4th), and in consideration of everyone’s health, we have found it necessary to cancel the in-person meeting and will be holding May’s meeting totally online. The details for connection to this meeting are available at the link for the meeting and at the end of this newsletter. You can view or download a copy of the Meeting Agenda at this Link: Meeting Agenda!
**We also want to wish a Happy Mother’s Day to all the precious women in our lives who deal with so much these days!
***In addition, we have been informed by Rep. Metcalfe that the 2nd Amendment Rally scheduled for June 8th is still on schedule and has NOT been cancelled! Please tell your 2nd Amend friends to join us in Harrisburg!
FOAC is now on Instagram. Check us out and let us know what you think: https://www.instagram.com/foacpac/
In Pennsylvania and , indeed all of America, every elected official is sworn into office with an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” For elected officials, the Oath isn’t supposed to be merely a trite recitation of empty words, but rather a resolute conviction to protect and preserve the constitutional rights and liberties of the citizens we represent in all circumstances—crisis or otherwise. Elected officials whose actions do not strictly adhere to the Oath with which they swore, even amidst the direst of emergencies, are little more than modern day slave masters, viewing their constituents as mere serfs for governing.
Our nation’s Founding Fathers had a keen understanding of the perversions of power and the exploitations of the men who wield it. Daniel Webster, one of our nation’s founders, perfectly noted the intent of the Constitution, and his commentary remains as valuable today as it did when he delivered in March of 1837.
“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Let me be exceedingly clear, nowhere in the Constitution or in an elected official’s Oath is there an exception made for times of emergency or crisis. In fact, in times like this it is a moral imperative that elected officials redouble their efforts to protect the People’s unalienable rights enshrined within our nation’s founding documents.
Ours is the oldest surviving constitutional system in the world. France, which had its own revolution a short time after the American Revolution, is on its fifth republic; yet over 200 years later we are still the same Republic. Since our founding, the world has kept a watchful eye on the great American experiment of self-governance. Would it work, could it thrive, would it survive?
Our nation and Constitution have survived many challenges: The Civil War, World War I and II, and the Cold War, among countless other trials and tribulations. While our chosen leaders have not always succeeded in strict adherence to the Constitution, our nation has always maintained that our founding principles were worth defending. In World War II we were challenged by, and ultimately overcame, the technological and military might of Hitler’s National Socialism. During the Cold War we stood up to the nuclear and ideological threat of Soviet Communism.
Now is the moment for all Americans to stand stronger than ever before in defense of liberty and our Constitution. We must demand the same from our elected officials, not settling for anything less than complete and total adherence to the protection of our rights.
Our children are watching. The world is watching. History is watching. Let us prove that Freedom is still the American way.
So Along Those Lines: If ‘Congress Shall Make No Law…’ Why Can Governors?
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That’s unambiguous. Yet PA Governor Wolf is ignoring or suspending almost every one of those rights enumerated at the top of the Bill of Rights, with little to no pushback from the press, which just happens to be the only part of the first two amendments not under assault.
Well, let’s be clear, they’re not actually not under assault – they’re just gone -- suspended indefinitely in the name of “the common good.” Wolf has declared a coronavirus emergency and wiped clean the rights Pennsylvania and our nation were founded upon for the purpose of putting those rights beyond the reach of government.
These suspensions were not done by vote; they were done with the stroke of a pen. Constitutionally, they can’t be done by either. There is no provision of the Constitution allowing for the waiving of rights under any condition, but most in the legislature appear content to sit back and watch this all proceed without their fingerprints anywhere near it.
Then journalists seemed genuinely perplexed as to why law-abiding Pennsylvanians might want to exercise their Second Amendment rights, another right with which we are born that shall “not be infringed” that is being infringed all over the place without concern from the media. “Gun stores are non-essential” in a time prisons are being emptied seems like a set-up for a bad joke, not a public policy.
If you speak out against these usurpations of your rights, you will be condemned as “not caring” for the vulnerable. If you couple your right to speak with others in the public square by assembling to magnify your voice, you risk arrest or a fine, a hefty one in a lot of states. These steps are designed to quash your right to petition government for redress of your grievances.
It’s the nature of government and those in power to attempt to amass as much of that power as possible, and the only way for that to happen is to take it from the people. Our Founding Fathers knew this and wrote the Constitution to guard against it as best it could be done, and still some of them were guilty of it themselves (see the Alien and Sedition Acts).
Since then, these incursions into our rights have generally been done with a small hammer and chisel, chipping away a little piece here, a tiny piece there, out of public view in legislation with pleasant-sounding names on matters of public concern: “We must fix this problem” *chip, chip chip* - “If it saves just one life” *chip, chip, chip* - etc.
These tend to go unnoticed for what they are, overwhelmed by the sense of urgency they’re generally coupled with. But this time, these same “caring leaders” aren’t using a hammer and chisel; they’re using dynamite. “This is going to change how we live our lives going forward,” is commonly heard now. That’s not how rights work.
The Constitution does not grant us rights, it acknowledges rights with which we are born. We can choose not to exercise them, but they cannot be taken away.
That’s not enough for many of these governors and their cheerleaders in the press. When governors started asking people to stay home, we did. We understood the reasoning. Then those requests became orders. Nothing much changed. Most people wanted to stave off the predicted horrors, so those orders were seen as akin to ordering the Sun to rise in the east. It was already happening, so it was basically meaningless.
But then either the predictions were wrong or compliance accomplished its mission, depending on your perspective, and people wanted to go outside. People wanted to stop the destruction of their livelihoods and return to work. That’s when they noticed the boot of government on their throats.
Now they’re taking to the halls of capitals, to the streets. Police are being ordered to put down offenders demanding their liberty back. Many police departments are refusing, but an alarming number of them are complying. It was impossible just two months ago for the answer to the jailhouse question of, “What are you in for?” to be answered with, “I went to the beach,” yet this is the reality under many Democrat Governors.
We will wrestle our freedoms back and soon. When we do, it’s important to remember not only who took them and why, but who tried not to give them back.
Individuals are irrelevant to the left, as are your rights. The Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, by any means available, not the restraint on their power it was written to be. Remember that come November…or you soon won’t be allowed to say it. Just ask Virginians if this isn’t true!
Biden Trashes the 1st Amendment as Well as the 2nd Amendment
While all of Biden’s talk about respecting Constitutional Rights hits the, supposed, right notes, Biden seems to forget one thing: back in 2011, Scott Powers, a reporter for the Orland Sun Sentinel, was locked in a storage closet during a fundraiser. The goal was to keep Powers from talking with people before the vice president showed up.
Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander responded at the time by saying it was an "unfortunate mistake of an inexperienced staffer and the vice president's office has made sure it will never happen again."
According to a spokeswoman, Powers was put in a so-called "hold room," which is a place for reporters to work while part of the press pool that covers the vice president. Although Powers was provided with a table and chair to work, Alexander agreed that "a hold room should not be a storage room."
At the time, the Sun Sentinel said Powers was ordered to stay in the storage closet until Biden took the podium to address high-dollar donors. A Biden staffer stood outside the room to ensure (restrain?) Powers stayed in place until Biden was on stage.
Under the Radar Gun Control: HR 6006 and S 3348 – Gun Registration
These bills would implement electronic, universal gun registration schemes - which has been a goal of the gun ban movement for decades.
Essentially, these would take all the ATF Form 4473 background check form with all your gun information and personal information (of every gun you've already bought or will ever buy) and turn them into an electronic gun registration database...
Gun grabbers have been trying to make a national gun registry for decades with the obvious end goal of banning and confiscating all privately-owned guns.
You can do two things to fight for your rights:
Supreme Court Sidesteps 2A Again in NYC Transport Case Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court released its decision, April 27, 2020, in the New York “Gun Transport” case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), and it isn’t good. You can read the decision here on the SCOTUS website.
Why Was the New York City Gun Transport Case Important?
“Petitioners [NYSRPA] sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari. 586 U. S. ___ (2019). After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint.”
New York City modified its law, fearing the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo has threatened to destroy the Second Amendment to the Nation many times in the past.
How Did Individual Justices Vote?
As you may have suspected, the liberal wing of the Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, voted in favor of the City, to dismiss the case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
Curiously and disturbingly, Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing, but filed a “Concurring Opinion” acknowledging that Justice Alito’s concern over some State and Federal Court mishandling of Heller and McDonald warrants high Court review but that the Court can do so in other cases pending before the Court.
Justice Alito’s Dissenting Opinion
The Majority decided the case in a two-page decision. Justice Alito, who penned the McDonald decision, wrote a thirty-one-page dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. In his opening remarks, Justice Alito began his Dissent with a blanket rebuke of the Majority’s Decision. He says:
“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced. Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests. On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller.”
What Is Really Going On In The Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court Majority did not want to deal with the Second Amendment since that means having to accept Heller and McDonald precedents. The liberal wing of the Court, especially, never wants to do this, and won’t.
Of course, the liberal wing never agreed with or accepted the Heller and McDonald rulings, and has consistently gone along with government actions to infringe the Second Amendment as if Heller and McDonald rulings never existed.
But, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have had enough.
Alito made clear New York City’s rescission of the transport gun case rule simply amounts to New York City’s acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the rule and that the Court would overturn it.
Justice Alito said, in closing:
“In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type. The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated. We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern. This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold. I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief.”
The liberal wing of the Court consistently legislates from the Bench. They abhor the Second Amendment and if they were confident that they could overturn Heller and McDonald, they would do so in a heartbeat. At the moment, they cannot.
Founding Father’s Statement on Freedom: "[O]f all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. ... History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781
Yours in Freedom!
Kim Stolfer, President
**As a reminder, every gun owner can participate in the May 10, 2020 FOAC Monthly meeting from any PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android phone by clicking on the link below:
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88482096175
**Meeting Agenda Download Online:
One-tap Mobile: +1929-205-6099, 802388529# US (New York)
Dial by location: +1929-205-6099 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 884 8209 6175
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adSioEAVyf
Read MORE News Below and at the Subject Links!
- Gun Control Groups Defense Of Nikki Fried Betrays Their True Agenda - COVID-19
When it comes to COVID-19, gun control groups probably shouldn’t have had anything to offer. After all, they claim they support law-abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms, they just want some “common sense” restrictions on those rights. Pro-gun activists have argued for years that they really want to basically take away those rights, which many gun control activists take issue with. more
- Which New Normal do You Mean?
The good news is that most of us are headed back to work. Unfortunately, we’ve seen too many new things during quarantine to be sure about our new “normal”. We’ve seen citizens and politicians behave horribly. The new normal isn’t about wearing a surgical mask in public. I’m worried that our new normal is about accepting political domination. more
- Below The Radar: Restoring The Armed Career Criminal Act
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Sometimes, legislation is kept under the radar because if the legislation is passed, it might actually solve the problem. Anti-Second Amendment extremists and their allies in the media really don’t want Americans to know that certain provisions already exist in the law. After all, if the American people did know, they'd probably be much less receptive to infringements on our Second Amendment rights. more
- Coronavirus is Democrats' latest excuse to attack the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For nearly 250 years, these words have held up. Despite numerous wars, changing cultures and economies, our Second Amendment has remained strong. The directive “shall not be infringed” is powerful; there are no footnotes, exceptions, or clarifications — not even for coronavirus. more
- GOP Senators Look To Beef Up NICS
The NICS background check system has had a rough couple of years. First, we learned how it failed to flag the Sutherland Springs shooter, someone who had been dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. That led to the Fix NICS legislation that passed with bipartisan support. more
- Judge Andrew Napolitano: Coronavirus crisis - Does America still have a Constitution?
I have been taking some heat from friends and colleagues for my steadfast defense of personal liberties and my arguments that the Constitution -- when interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of its words, and informed by history -- does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic. more
- Utah Man Loses Case To Block Bump Stock Ban
There are still a lot of people who are less than happy about the bump stock ban. In fairness, why wouldn’t they be? There was no grandfather clause, no ability to register bump stocks, no nothing for those who had them except to turn them over or destroy them. more
- Federal Judge Says MA Gun Stores Can Re-Open
A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of Gov. Charlie Baker’s order declaring gun stores non-essential businesses that must remain closed while his stay-at-home order is in effect. U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock issued the ruling on Thursday, stating that there was “no justification” for keeping gun shops across the state shuttered and locked, and ordering that stores be allowed to re-open on Saturday, May 9. more
- Judge Rules In Favor Of NRA On FL Age Restriction Law
For years now, legal adults under the age of 21 haven’t been able to buy a handgun. While that’s a problem, it wasn’t an overly pressing one in a lot of ways. After all, those same adults could buy pretty much any longarm they wanted. Shotguns, AR-15s, hunting rifles, whatever was still available to them. For many, that was good enough for the time being. more
- Ninth Circuit Sets Date to Hear Young v. Hawaii Arguments
As you may recall, what seems like an eternity ago — two years — a panel of the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in Young v. Hawaii. In that case, the petitioner was denied a Hawaii concealed carry permit. Hawaii is technically a “may issue” state that requires an “exceptional case” for a permit, but as Hawaii concedes, in practice the state simply does not issue any concealed carry permits. more
- Nevada Self-Defense: LVMPD: Road rage shooting near Russell, I-15 investigated as self defense
LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -- Las Vegas Metropolitan Police are investigating a fatal road rage incident Thursday night as self defense. more
- Texas Self-Defense: Man, 24, fatally shot by ex after breaking into her home, San Antonio police say
SAN ANTONIO – A 33-year-old woman opened fire on her ex-boyfriend moments after he broke into her home Wednesday night, San Antonio police said. more
- Alabama Self-Defense: No charges filed in deadly shooting in Madison County
The man shot to death during a domestic-violence incident in Madison County on Sunday night has been identified as 31-year-old Huntsville man Jonathan Marquis Burrell. more
- Kentucky Self-Defense: Deputies: Hebron homeowner shoots at, collars burglar
The Boone County Sheriff’s Office says a man is behind bars the worse for wear after he tried to burglarize a home and was shot at and collared by the homeowner. more
- Illinois Self-Defense: Off-duty firefighter shot while cutting lawn and talking to neighbors on Far South Side returned fire in self defense, police say
An off-duty Chicago firefighter who was shot several times while chatting with friends and cutting the lawn on the Far South Side Thursday night fired back at the assailant in self-defense, officials said. more