PA Bill Number: HB2291
Title: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition; and, in home rule and ...
Description: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition; and, in home rule and ... ...
Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY
Last Action Date: Feb 18, 2020
Friends of Kristin Phillips-Hill Event - 02/25/2020
LEVEL 2 215 N 2nd Street, Harrisburg, PA
PA Firearms Law Seminar with Lodestone Training and Consulting - 03/7/2020
Lodestone Training and Consulting 1 S. Wilson Ave., Ste. 201 Elizabethtown, PA
2nd Amendment Town Hall Meeting - 03/7/2020
Zem Zem Shrine Club 2525 W 38th Street, Erie, PA
FOAC's Weekly Message For Monday February 3rd 2020 :: 02/03/2020
As the 2020 Pennsylvania elections begin to take shape it is becoming eerily apparent just how closely we resemble 2019 Virginia in 'our' upcoming statewide elections. By now most gunowners, if not all, are distinctly aware of the problems that are occurring for law-abiding gun owners because of the elections in 2019. The Democrats have taken a sweeping majority in both House and Senate as well as the Gov.’s office and the Atty. Gen.
The changes referenced above have resulted in devastating changes and MANY gun control proposals in the legislature that portend the evisceration of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in this once free and proud bastion of the Constitution. More on that later…
Here in Pennsylvania the same election Petri dish, if you will, exists. As the elections unfold here are a few details to consider, there are FOUR special elections coming up (three on March 17 and one on March 24). Because of retirements from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives alone, there will be 16 open seats with the majority of them being vacated by pro-gun incumbents. When you couple the retirements with the open seats and then look at how slim the pro-gun majorities are in both the Pennsylvania Senate in Pennsylvania House of Representatives it becomes starkly apparent that we can ill afford apathy in these elections.
If Pennsylvania gunowners do not awaken to the fact that Virginia is a model for every state to be overwhelmed by the anti-gun groups, especially now that Bloomberg is dumping $60 million dollars into the state races this year, then when January 1, 2021 comes around, the outlook for Pennsylvania will be looking very bleak indeed!
This does not mean we cannot turn back this tide and even increase our pro-gun majorities in both legislative bodies here in Pennsylvania! I’m optimistic that if gunowners will recognize the need for involvement and the dangers of apathy that we can invest a good portion of the 5 million Pennsylvania gunowners to stand up to the bullying and financial jackhammer of the anti-gun groups and Michael Bloomberg and perhaps even rattle his cage a little at the same time!!!
There is an old axiom in politics and that is “all politics is local” and it is an axiom that seems to have lost its impact in Virginia as now gunowners are scrambling to try and impede the ideologues who have taken over that government. If you sit down and look at the current Pennsylvania legislature you will see some stark and unnerving comparisons because, for example, the contingent of what is called “blue dog Democrats” is nearly in nonexistent in the Democrat party in Pennsylvania. Why is that troubling? Because back in the early and mid-90s there were more A rated Democrat members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives than there were Republicans! This may seem incredible to some but we have the documents and records to prove it. Those Democrats knew what the Constitution stood for and could be counted on to consider issues fairly and thoughtfully! However, most of the current Democrats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives are rated F- on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and don’t see the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda.
Should control of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives or Pennsylvania Senate or both swing to the Democrats then we “will” see the very same approach that is now unraveling and on full display in Virginia. This will mean that the entire top government offices of Pennsylvania will have become Democrat and anti-gun! Let that one sink in for a moment! Think about ERPO/Red Flag Laws and gun bans and ammo bans and travel restrictions and repeal of Castle Doctrine and self-defense limits and more 'all' being signed into law HERE!
When you consider that the appellate courts in Pennsylvania are largely made up of Democrat majorities then the one remaining source of appeal on constitutional issues is now already possibly painted in the direction of gun control in advance of this year’s elections.
Many often proclaim this or that year’s elections to be the most important but I will not go down that road. What I will say is that it is critically important that we get our friends and fellow Second Amendment activists involved if we hope to avoid socialist circus that is unraveling and unfolding in Virginia.
(PA) Manheim Township Votes Down Illegal Gun Ordinance After FOAC Sends Letter of Objection and Intent
On December 10, attorney Joshua Prince, on behalf of FOAC, sent a letter to the Manheim Township commissioners in regard to the proposed ordinance that would prohibit gun dealers from having a legitimate business within 1000 feet of a school as well as prohibiting firearms signage.
The clarifying section from the letter by Atty. Prince:
In relation to Manheim Township's recent consideration of an ordinance prohibiting FFLs within 1000 feet of a school, as well as signage depicting firearms, there can be no dispute that it is preempted pursuant to Article 1, Sections 7, 21, and 25 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5301, 6120, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in Ortiz, as well as, the legion of precedent from the Commonwealth Court.
In the event Manheim Township takes any further steps in enacting this proposal, FOAC is prepared to file private criminal complaints against each official involved in the proposing and enacting of the proposal and file suit against the Township, which will result in substantial additional burdens on the taxpayers. Clearly, it is in the best of interest of all of those involved that the proposal not be considered. Accordingly, I am respectfully requesting that no further action be taken in relation to the proposal or that it otherwise be removed from consideration. In the event the Township refuses to do so, please let me know whether you will accept service of the Complaint or require service by the Sheriff.
In a Dec. 16 LPN article by Jeff Hawks titled “Gun rights group threatens legal action if Manheim Township band gun shops near schools”. In this article Commissioner Sam Mecum made comments that were quite troubling.
The Commissioner’s statements reinforce the systemic problem that is rampant across the Commonwealth and across our nation where the “Elected Class” act as if they are above the law and they are somehow immune to consequences when they are called out about their abuse of the rights of law-abiding Pennsylvanians. Just for the record let’s be clear, the proposed ordinances are criminal violations of Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code, Title 18, Section 6120, in addition to violating Article 1, Section 21 and Section 25 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The LPN article states: Commissioner Sam Mecum in an email to LNP called it 'outrageous' that Prince would threaten private criminal charges against the commissioners 'for simply doing our jobs.' He added that the threat is 'itself, in my opinion, a possible criminal act of threatening a public official.'
How arrogant and oblivious can Commissioner Mecum be (supposedly an attorney) when he believes that the job description of an elected official that includes violating State Preemption laws and committing criminal acts. Elected officials have a duty to uphold the law of the land and many swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania respectively. Where was the media outrage with these statements considering how they are attacking Pres. Trump for far less?!
The question that wasn’t asked in the article is ‘where’ is the Lancaster District Attorney and why has the DA ignored these clear violations of the Crimes Code? On August 28, 2017, District Attorney Stedman, issued a letter declaring that 'the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clearly denied all municipalities the power to regulate firearms and the Uniform Firearms Act prohibits a township from regulation concerning the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms or ammunition 'in any manner.''
Preemption Laws essentially state that local governments have ‘no’ authority to enact laws or ordinances that supersede Pennsylvania State-wide laws. Unfortunately, many localities have recently passed illegal laws in regards to firearms that only impact the law-abiding citizens who freely exercise their Constitutional rights; thereby, resulting in official oppression of those citizens by the municipality. By passing laws that restrict the rights of law-abiding Pennsylvanians, these elected officials empower the criminal elements of society by disarming the citizenry and creating “Gun Free Zones” that give criminal predators easy targets to prey upon.
This type of demonization and demagoguery has nothing to do with promoting a “safe and effective learning environment in our schools”, as Joshua Cohen, the attorney representing Lancaster Country Day School stated. It is proof of an agenda that is designed to assault the rights and liberties of law abiding gun owners and business owners. This fact is self-evident as that these measures are still being pursued even though the “Gun Gallery” Store is no longer in business and no longer at the address within the proposed “school zone”.
When elected officials disregard Pennsylvania criminal law and violate the constitutional rights and liberties of law-abiding Pennsylvanians, not only do they victimize the citizens that these local ordinances target, but they also waste public funds and tax dollars when these “servants of the people” fight and lose when challenged in the courts. Elected officials who knowingly and willingly violate the law and purposefully waste tax dollars by defending their own illegal actions by rights ought to and should be held accountable.
On January 27 the Manheim Township Council voted down the illegal ordinance despite the previous rhetoric and finally appeared to recognize that there are limits to their power under the law and the Constitution! FOAC would also like to thank the local gun owners who showed up to stand with us against these illegal laws!
Injunction GRANTED against Pennsylvania State Police’s Policy relating to “Partially-Manufactured Frames and Receivers”
Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Attorney Adam Kraut, Director of Legal Strategy at Firearms Policy Coalition, were successful in the case of Landmark Firearms, LLC, et al. v. Evanchick, 694 M.D. 2019, in obtaining an injunction against the Pennsylvania State Police's implementation and enforcement of its 'policy' regarding what it refers to both as 'partially-manufactured frames and receivers' and '80% receivers.'
In a 17 page decision, Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson found that the Pennsylvania State Police, in implementing and enforcing its policy, violated the due process rights of Pennsylvania residents and businesses, as well as, businesses from other states. Specifically, the Court declared
With respect to Petitioners' due process claim in Count III and their claim in Count IV that the PSP Letter is void on the ground of vagueness, however, the Court concludes Petitioners have demonstrated a substantial legal question.
The Court continued on to specifically declare
The Court agrees with Petitioners that there is a substantial legal question as to whether PSP's new policy regarding partially manufactured receivers is impermissibly vague.
As the Court explained
The term frame or receiver is not defined in the UFA, PSP has not promulgated any regulations to define what constitutes a frame or receiver, and PSP is no longer following the ATF's lead regarding what constitutes the frame or receiver of a weapon. Rather than clarify, the new PSP policy adds confusion by introducing a new term' partially manufactured receiver'-and a new form-Form SP 4-121-into the mix of gun regulations without an explanatory bridge tying them back to the UFA.
Guidance to the firearms industry and the public on this change in policy is critical. The only document that currently sets forth PSP's change in interpretation is the PSP Letter. That letter merely sets forth the blanket statement that partially manufactured receivers are considered firearms with respect to certain sections of the UFA, without providing a definition of the term partially manufactured receiver; a description or examples of the products that PSP believes, under its new interpretation, fall within the sweep of the statutory definition of firearm; or any guidance as to how this new term will be interpreted and applied by PSP going forward. The mere mention of the AG Opinion is not enough to provide fair notice or warning to the public as to how sellers or purchasers of this undefined class of unfinished receivers may comply with the UFA and avoid criminal prosecution. Due process demands more.
All of this-(1) PSP's failure to explain how its new policy on partially manufactured frames or receivers differs from its prior policy and that of the ATF, such that those subject to the UFA have fair notice of PSP's change in policy; (2) PSP's failure to tether its new policy to the text of the UFA, particularly the term 'frame or receiver' in the relevant definition of firearm; (3) the introduction of a new term, partially manufactured receiver, as opposed to simply defining what a 'frame or receiver' is under the UFA as including what PSP now seeks to capture; and ( 4) the deployment of a new form to be used with respect only to sales/transfers of a subclass of firearms, which lacks any level of specificity, where PSP regulations provide for a specific form to be used in all firearms transactions under the UFA sows confusion within the industry and the public.
Thereafter, the Court acknowledged that the PSP's 'Policy' constitutes per se irreparable harm, that an injunction returns the parties to the status quo, and that the 'public policy of this Commonwealth does not favor such vague laws.'
As such, the Court issued the following Order:
AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2020, Petitioners' Application for Relief in the Nature of a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Colonel Robert Evanchick, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), and his agents, servants and officers, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing PSP's new policy addressed to partially manufactured receivers, as currently set forth in PSP's Letter of January 9, 2020, until final disposition of the Petition for Review, including appeals.
As specified in the Order, the preliminary injunction will not issue until we pay a $100.00 cost bond, which will be paid on Monday.
It must be noted that none of this would have been possible without the support of Firearms Policy Coalition. If you're in a position to donate, please do so here.
If you or someone you know has had their rights violated by a Government agency, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.
Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.
Virginia Gun Control Bills Advance Last Week Despite Massive Rally Against Gun Control
As the sun sets on Virginia’s constitutional right to bear arms, the Democrats continue to forge ahead with plans to ignore citizen outrage over their gun-control agenda! As an example, there was little to no debate on the Democrat package of gun control bills. What little debate that was attempted was shut down decisively by the majority Democrats. The Virginia House Democrats have no interest in listening to opposing views and instead are ramming them through the legislative process as introduced with impunity.
- House Bill 2 – “Universal” Background Checks – This bill is different than the version passed in the Senate..
- House Bill 9 Requires the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of gaining the knowledge that this has occurs.
- House Bill 421 Rolling back pre-emption. This bill allows local governments to enact their own gun control ordinances, potentially resulting in a patchwork of laws that will entrap gun owners.
- House Bill 1083 Minors access to firearms.
- House Bill 674 “Red Flag” bill. This bill is different than SB240 which was amended several times before passage. HB674 was not amended from the introduced version.
- House Bill 812 Handgun rationing (one gun-a-month) – This bill is different that passed the Senate in that it does not include an exemption for concealed handgun permit holders.
These bills are but the tip of the iceberg and a number of bad gun bills are awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as even more in the House including HB961 – Governor Northam's so-called “assault weapons” bill. It has not moved and is facing an uncertain fate if it reaches the State Senate.
Gov. Northam’s bill would ban rifles, shotguns, and pistols based on cosmetic features or the number of rounds the firearm will hold.
A complete list of bills can be found on the VSSA Legislative Tracking Form.
If you want a good explanation of what is wrong with the red flag bills making their way through the Assembly, I encourage you to read the article Seeing Red in Virginia by Dr. Dennis Petrocelli, MD. Dr. Petrocelli is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. His comments about the dangers of the Virginia red flag bills also applies to the four Pennsylvania ERPO/red flag bills.
Obama’s Attack on America’s Gun Makers and Gunsmiths Through the ITAR Regulations of The State Department Is Finally Being Rolled Back by The Trump Administration
The Trump administration is finalizing reform of antiquated Cold War rules that were used by Pres. Obama to target gunsmiths and small gun manufacturers. Included in the reforms is the transfer of responsibility for the export of most firearms and ammunition from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce.
In 2016, the State Department, under the Obama administration, “clarified” the definition of “manufacturers” who were required to register under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The registration fee was $2,250 per year. PNJ.com reports the actions of the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC):
The DDTC defined manufacturing as, among other things: The production of firearm parts, the systemized production of ammunition, modifications that change round capacity, the machining or cutting of firearms resulting in enhanced capability, and use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to improve the capability of assembled or repaired firearms.
The change in definition appeared to cover everything from drilling and tapping for scope mounts to threading a barrel. It impacted the small gunsmith, for whom $2,250 a year would be a large expenditure, more than large manufacturers. Those small gunsmiths are the least likely to be a threat to the United States military.
Attempts to reform the bureaucratic attack on gunsmiths began immediately. Return to the status quo was opposed by those who fervently wish to disarm America.
The Trump administration worked to return to the original situation for gunsmiths while reforming antiquated, restrictive rules of firearms exports which had accumulated under ITAR.
The final form of the new rules are expected to be published on 23 January 2020. There will be a 45 day period after that before the rules go into effect.
The new rules will need to be examined carefully to see what they do and do not cover. It appears silencers/suppressors for sporting firearms will not be included in the transfer to Commerce. They should be. They are a simple technology shown to be beneficial in non-military settings. Many countries in the First World have little or no regulation of silencers/suppressors.
For example, any child with a few dollars in New Zealand, can walk into a store and walk out with a silencer/suppressor, yet silencers/suppressors are almost never used in New Zealand crimes.
None of the above rationales is based on a “military advantage” of the United States. It seems, peculiarly, to be based on the idea of preserving foreign governments' limited ability to keep their populations unarmed. It is based entirely on unfounded subjective hypotheticals and potentials. All of those are based on the assumption armed populations (other than those of the United States) are entirely detrimental.
Guest Article-David Codrea:
Request Filed with DOJ for Any Record of Second Amendment Statements of Interest
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-A Freedom of Information Act request was filed Tuesday with the Department of Justice by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh. The request, filed on behalf of this writer, seeks DOJ “statements of interest” in defense of the Second Amendment comparable to what the Department has done in defense of the First Amendment.
“Imagine a society in which a citizen must petition the government for permission to meet with his fellow citizens,” the DOJ wrote in its statement filed in December in Brown v Jones County Junior College. “Imagine further that such requests must be made at least three days in advance of the requested meeting, and that the government has unbridled discretion to determine who may meet with whom, and about what they might speak. Such extreme preconditions to speech might not be out of place in Oceania, the fictional dystopian superstate in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, ensures that preconditions like these have no place in the United States of America.”
But “preconditions like these” have a place in the United States of America when it comes to the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Considering the historical evils that have always accompanied a “monopoly of violence,” Orwell’s Oceania seems like a resort community.
“The United States further states that the Attorney General enforces 34 U.S.C. § 12601 ‘which provides in relevant part that governmental authorities and their agents may not ‘engage in a pattern or practice by law enforcement officers… that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States’ and that the Attorney General ‘may in a civil action obtain the appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice,’” the DOJ statement asserted.
So they’ll go after violations for other rights, but where the Second Amendment is concerned, state entities can do as they please without fear of federal checks? Even though infringements directly affect the “security of a free State” by disarming the citizen Militia?
So much for “the supreme Law of the Land.”
This reminds me of nothing so much as “The Ashcroft Petition” project I co-authored and co-administered several years back. After then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had declared “the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms,” my colleagues and I decided to see if those were just words or if there was any chance the DOJ would do its job and protect individual rights from being infringed.
The upshot—after collecting and submitting over 40,000 mailed-in signatures from supporters across the country (including “Gunners Guru” Col. Jeff Cooper), the only official reply we got was a mealy-mouthed nothing burger, pointedly sent from the head of DOJ’s Terrorism and Violent Crime Section. That, and I had to write a letter to then-NRA-ILA head James Jay Baker demanding that he instruct their California field rep to stop telling people not to sign the petition because those of us behind it were “wild-eyed extremists.”
In any case, today is supposedly a new day and we have since had two Supreme Court cases confirming what Mr. Ashcroft once assured us, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. So now it’s time to find out what, if anything, our Department of Justice has done to fulfill duties it acknowledges in court filings to enforce against government actions “that deprive persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” It’s time to find out what kind of “appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice” we can expect from those whose entire existence is justified on doing just that.
Here’s our FOIA request:
FOIA DOJ Statement of Inter…
I’ll write an update when I hear back from DOJ.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Subject: Gun Owners in NY Face ‘New’ Proposed Law That Would Force Them to Get Mental Health Evaluations to Exercise Their Rights
The continuing march towards the strangulation of our Freedom through the relentless pursuit of more gun laws in New York has manifested itself in another assault on the rights of the citizens in what is truly becoming the Empire State. The latest is sponsored by state Senator James Sanders Jr. of the 10th Senate District which low and behold is over seventy-five percent Democrat and is in southeast Queens, some of the more crime-ridden parts of New York City.
The bill (S7065) (A01589) would make it mandatory that every gun owner in the state of New York get a mental health evaluation before they could purchase a firearm. This wouldn’t be a one-time thing, this would be for every gun and of course, these evaluations would have to be held at a location of the state of New York’s choosing and would be at the expense of the person looking to purchase the gun. This new assault on the rights of gun owners comes in the face of the ever progressive agenda of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s regime making it more than well known that gun owners in New York State are not only not wanted, they are on his list of targets and as he has said in the past if people don’t like his rules, then they are free to leave. The way things are going in New York, that’s getting to be the only thing they are free to do.
FOAC in the Media: Manheim Township Preemption Fight: https://foac-pac.org/Pennsylvania:-Manheim-Twp-Gun-shop-free-Zones-Proposal-Nixed/News-Item/10692
VIDEO OF THE WEEK: Texas West Freeway Church Attack:
Gun Control Quote of the Week: Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s remarks after the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas:
‘It is the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You don’t want average citizens to have guns in public. That is the job of the police.’
1st Point to Ponder: Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety will spend “at least $60 million in the 2020 election,” according to The Hill, in what is shaping up as an effort to buy Congress and perhaps even the Constitution, with a focus on 13 states.
2nd Point to Ponder: In 2016, according to The Hour, the National Rifle Association spent $54.4 million on advertising, but ever since, NRA has been “outspent in smaller contests, including the 2019 state elections in Virginia.”
3rd Point to Ponder: In Colorado - one of the states reportedly being targeted by Bloomberg - the Colorado Sun is reporting, “Ahead of his White House bid, the former New York mayor and billionaire businessman contributed at least $6 million to Colorado political campaigns in the past decade, funded major outside advocacy efforts and gifted millions more through philanthropy…
Founding Father’s Statement on Freedom: 'We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?' Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, 1775
Closing Thoughts: Yahoo, AOL, and Verizon; Direct Interference with E-Mail Communication to FOAC members!
While this section and newsletter may not get to FOAC members who utilize Yahoo, AOL, and Verizon, I’m writing this to advise everyone that our emails are openly being interfered with unjustly and with apparently no concern as to the implications this has for our organization!
Apparently, Yahoo controls the email (and a rejection thereof) for all three companies. Verizon owns the other two companies and has apparently vested control and interest in Yahoo to be the determining factor in authorizing the sending and receiving of emails through their services.
I literally have thousands of emails that have not been delivered to members from our website that they have paid for the service of and elected to receive! This stifling of communication cannot and should not be tolerated and should any member reading this have those services I suggest you consider contacting them as it is only logical for me to assume that we are not the only ones being blocked to each individual who has that service.
We are trying to work through this but apparently the federal government has given these companies basically a “get out of jail free card” in protecting them from legal ramifications of defrauding and disenfranchising their customers! This is tantamount to the phone company terminating your phone calls should they not like the content you’re talking about! (Who said George Orwell was wrong?)
**As a reminder, if you are receiving emails from the website that you prefer not to receive any longer you can control all of that through the members Control Panel by signing into the website. If you have any problems with that process please send an email to info@FOACPAC.org.
Yours in Freedom!
Kim Stolfer, President
As a reminder, every gun owner can participate in the February 9, 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://zoom.us/j/256368963
One-tap Mobile: US: +19292056099,, 256368963# US (New York)
Dial by location: +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 256 368 963
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adSioEAVyf