proposed laws

PA Bill Number: HB1494

Title: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for definitions, for persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer ...

Description: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for definitions, for persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer ...

Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY

Last Action Date: May 22, 2019

more >>

upcoming events

Concealed Carry Seminar Hosted by Rep. Bud Cook - 05/25/2019
Charleroi Sportsmen Club 79 Gun Club Road, Charleroi, PA

FOAC Monthly Meeting - 06/9/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA

FOAC Monthly Meeting - 07/14/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday August 5th 2018 :: 08/05/2018

Denialism is a condition that drives people, gun owners especially, to reject reality and the truth. Part of being human, and living in a society with other humans, is finding clever ways to express, conceal and even ignore our feelings.

Across America and especially Pennsylvania, gun owners seem oblivious to the depth and breadth and sheer malignancy of the coordinated campaign against our Constitution! The sheer profusion of voices, the plurality of opinions, the constant noise of the haranguing voices of the controversy, are enough to make any gun owner doubt who and what they should believe.

So how do we fight Denialism? If you believe that you are being constantly misled by exaggeration, you may be in danger of accepting the lies of others and it creates a mix of corrosive doubt and corrosive credibility.

Bloomberg's Puppet Mayors and his Carpet Bagger anti-gun groups are pushing illegal gun control at the state level throughout America. As an example, in a recent NBC News article, Columbia, South Carolina Mayor Stephen Benjamin discussed a brazen plan to trample on gun rights nationwide.

According to the article, the plan was born in the summer of 2015 when two political groups traveled to Columbia to stage competing protests over the removal of a Confederate flag at the state Capitol. Fearing bloodshed (because that's what happens whenever anyone carries a gun, right?), Benjamin and the city council passed an emergency ordinance to ban firearms around the Statehouse.

Assuming that a lack of dead bodies following the protests meant their ordinance worked, Benjamin and other mayors started promoting gun control to cities across the U.S.

From the article:

… Benjamin is helping to lead a movement among municipal governments to control the possession and use of firearms within their borders.

… their work is slowly catching on. In recent months, local governments have limited certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles, created "gun-free zones" and adopted zoning laws to keep out gun stores.

But wait. Aren't there “preemption” laws to prevent cities from doing this? Yes. In fact, according to the article, “Forty-three states now have laws preventing municipal governments from passing gun regulations that go further than state ones.”

Mayor Benjamin and the Columbia City Council know this.

The city's leaders knew that South Carolina's strict firearms pre-emption statute prohibited them from acting on their own to stop the demonstrators from carrying guns. But they did it anyway, because the marches would be over by the time a judge could strike the ordinance down.

Benjamin believes that the ordinance — which was indeed invalidated, but not until after the marches — saved lives. And it got him thinking about other ways to get around state law, which curtails local governments' ability to regulate firearms and ammunition.

In other words, they wanted to ban guns and it would take too long to do it legally, so they just did it illegally.

The blatantly illegal nature of their city ordinance didn't seem to bother them, however, because Benjamin and the city council proceeded to double down by “... making Columbia the first city in the country to enact a bump stock ban.”

It's amazing that a mayor would so willingly disregard state law even after having a previous ordinance struck down, but it's less amazing when you consider who Benjamin is.

Oh, did I mention? Mayor Benjamin is President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which has direct ties to Michael Bloomberg who is pumping millions of dollars into gun control efforts nationwide through a program innocently called the “American Cities Initiative.”

A June, 2017 Bloomberg press release claims the initiative will promote “bold leadership and effective problem-solving in city halls” as well as advance “critical policies and legislation.”

So, let's add up all the pieces shall we.

Legislators, elected by the people in the vast majority of states, pass laws to specifically prevent cities from enacting their own gun laws. However, even though courts have upheld state preemption laws and struck down municipal gun laws, gun-phobic mayors and city councils ignore the rule of law, a bedrock of western civilization, and, with backing from a self-promoting billionaire, push a nationwide initiative to break the law and infringe on rights protected by the United States Constitution.

It's not a mistake. It's not being done through ignorance. It's the willful and unlawful infringement of Article 1, Section 21 & 25 (PA) and 2nd Amendment rights in a well-funded and nationally-coordinated strategy.

And now, it's ‘here’ in Pennsylvania. From so-called Sanctuary cities to the Obama administration’s Promise Program for schools that is in place in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (that led directly to the Parkland killings) to the recent craziness in Harrisburg over Republicans promoting gun control in the Judiciary Committee, the ‘red shirts’ of socialism are growing like weeds.

The latest example of this is the over-the-top rhetoric and lies of the top Pennsylvania Executives, Gov. Wolf and Atty. Gen. Shapiro, regarding 3D gun printing files being available on the internet since the DOJ ‘lost’ their court case against Defense Distributed. The fact that Pennsylvania has gone to Federal Court and ‘BANNED’ ALL Pennsylvanians 1st ‘and’ 2nd Amendment rights to download these digital files exemplifies the arrogance of power here in this state. On top of this attack is the utter disregard for the Constitutional concept of ‘Separation of Powers’ although this argument seems lost on gun owners, not to mention the media. Coupling this action with other state’s Governors and the raft of legislation introduced and you have a 1st Amendment bonfire the likes of which would make the firebugs at the Salem Witch Trials envious!

The gist of this issue is that citizens ARE allowed to manufacture firearms for ‘themselves’ legally. The last time there was this much handwringing and demagoguery on guns it came from guys who wore Redcoats and walked in a straight-line!

Gun owners seem oblivious to these well-funded and well-organized threats.

Given the brazenness of this Bloomberg-inspired insanity, you have to wonder what's coming next? Is this some new form of civil disobedience at the municipal level? How many cities will pass such laws? How many will we have to sue?  Why can we NOT get good preemption law passed that would provide the means by which to stop some of this nonsense? At the heart of this is, once again, denialism of the threat posed by these anti-gun groups!

It's even gone beyond guns. We seem to have arrived at a frightening moment in history when we're seeing elected officials blatantly support lawbreaking for political gain, such as the Democrat Party's growing support of illegal border crossing and calls for mob action against political opponents.

Is this just election-year desperation or the start of something darker in American politics? Every gun owner needs to decide if they can continue to sit on the sidelines any longer.

State Inspired Terrorism – New York Governor Seeks the Destruction of the NRA

So, what will YOU do when the NRA is dissolved? You think it isn’t possible? MORE denial?

The NRA claims, in a lawsuit filed in May, that it's facing financial ruin because of a full-frontal assault from New York Governor Cuomo and his administration.

The gun rights group blames a campaign by Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo aimed at discouraging insurance companies and other financial institutions from doing business with the NRA.

In a recent court filing, the NRA said it suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages as a result of the state's campaign to dissuade banks and insurance companies from doing business with it.

Cuomo and his state regulators "seek to silence one of America's oldest constitutional-rights advocates," the National Rifle Association said in the July 20 court filing. "If their abuses are not enjoined, they will soon, substantially, succeed."

New York's governor doesn't appear to be backing down. In a statement, Cuomo has described the NRA's lawsuit as "a futile and desperate attempt to advance its dangerous agenda to sell more guns."

"In New York, we won't be intimidated by frivolous court actions from a group of lobbyists bent on chipping away at common sense gun safety laws that many responsible gun owners actually support," the governor's office said. "I am proud of my 'F' rating from the NRA, and I will continue to do everything I can to keep New Yorkers safe."

But Cuomo also acknowledged that in April, he directed state regulators to "urge insurance companies, New York State-chartered banks, and other financial services companies licensed in New York to review any relationships they may have with the National Rifle Association." Cuomo argued that such ties could "harm their corporate reputations and jeopardize public safety."

When a state can use its’ inherent powers to destroy outside private advocacy groups as a nation we are in big trouble! Seeing state elected officials open this Pandora’s box should be deeply concerning to those on both the right and the left. One easily could imagine similar motivated prosecutions of financial-services firms that do business with Planned Parenthood, tobacco companies, tech firms, the solar industry, or even the political campaigns of rival parties. The precedent set by these blatantly political regulatory actions undermines not only the insurance market, but the rule of law.

It’s time to consider what you and your friends, who support the 2nd Amendment, have done for Freedom today ‘and’ are willing to do because we KNOW FOR SURE what people like Cuomo, Bloomberg, Soros, Pelosi, Schumer and others are doing it to take it away from all of us!!

Pro-2nd Amendment Court Ruling Elicits Hysteria

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling that the Second Amendment protects the open carrying of firearms outside the home in a Hawaii case challenging a restrictive gun control law there.

The ruling may be read here.

But the Los Angeles Times editorial board is among the unhappy campers, declaring that “the panel’s decision is just as wrong as the Heller case it is built upon, and if it stands, it will make the nation a more dangerous place.”

The Ninth Circuit four years ago ruled in Peruta v. San Diego that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment. The Los Angeles Times, say gun rights activists, can’t have it both ways. The right to bear arms mentioned in the amendment means what it says; to carry.

The editorial suggests that the Times believes this right ends at the front door, a contention that Second Amendment scholars have repeatedly said is patently ridiculous. Rights go with citizens wherever they travel in the United States. To suggest otherwise, they contend, would relegate the Second Amendment to the status of a government-regulated privilege.

Expect Hawaii authorities to ask for an en banc hearing at the Ninth Circuit. And then an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which the newspaper seems to fear.

“But there’s a risk here that the disagreements among lower courts,” the editorial laments, “over the issue might finally force the Supreme Court to accept another major 2nd Amendment case. Since the Heller case and a related decision out of Illinois in 2010, the nation’s top court has been loath to hear new challenges to gun regulations.

“Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s conservative nominee to replace the retiring and more centrist Justice Anthony M.Kennedy, embraces an expansive approach to the 2nd Amendment. While his confirmation would not necessarily mean a court more friendly to gun rights, it would probably mean that the court will consider more challenges to gun control laws, with Kavanaugh providing the fourth vote to grant a hearing (it takes five justices to reach a majority decision). And once the court decides to hear a case, anything can happen.”

Why a newspaper that depends upon, and vigorously defends, the First Amendment would be hostile to the protection and expansion of another tenet of the Bill of Rights is a question best asked by subscribers.

Things Anti-Gunners Fail To Understand About '3D Printing Guns'

Over the last few weeks, the issue of 3-D printed guns has overwhelmed the news. Anti-gunners are frothing at the mouth that the State Department settled with Defense Distributed to allow the company to post blueprints for 3-D printed guns beginning on Aug. 1. In fact, multiple states filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration in order to put a temporary restraining order on Defense Distributed's blueprint launch. A federal court ruled in the states' favor and Defense Distributed was ordered to halt their Aug. 1 launch.

With all of the hype surrounding 3-D printed guns, there are a few things that the general public does not know about these so-called "ghost guns," which do not have a serial number. Ghost guns can include an 80 percent lower as well as 3-D printed guns. That means that a non-plastic piece that is 80 percent finished can be used to complete the gun. 

Defense Distributed and other companies sell these 80 percent lowers, which are the receiver that the rest of the gun is assembled around. This is most commonly seen with AR-15s where people custom build their rifle.

3-D Printed Guns Are Detectable 

Various politicians and gun control groups are freaked out over Defense Distributed's blueprints. What they don't know is that those blueprints follow the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 and include metal pieces.

Under the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, it is:

...unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm: (1) which is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar (after the removal of grips, stocks, and magazines) by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Exemplar; or (2) of which any major component, when subjected to inspection by x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

As it currently stands, all guns that are printed with a 3-D printer must include some metal, and do such as a firing pin and even the ammunition, that can be read by a metal detector or x-ray machine.

Designs Are Readily Available

Although the general public doesn't really know this, 3-D printed gun blueprints are readily available online and have been for years. And it's all perfectly legal.

What’s more, conventional design blueprints are readily available for many firearms in the Library of Congress ‘and’ the US Patent office.

A coalition of pro-gun groups — consisting of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and the California Coalition of Federal Firearms Licensees — created a website where they posted the same exact blueprints Defense Distributed planned on posting beginning Aug. 1.

Gun control leaders, like Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts, have spread the false narrative that Defense Distributed's blueprints are the only blueprints available.

The blueprints have already been published, and you know what they say: once something's on the Internet, it will live there forever.

During an interview with CBS "This Morning", Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed, explained this reality:

Blueprints were already published on the Internet. Barring his company from posting them on his website doesn't suddenly remove all previous files from the Internet or people's computers. If people want to download them, they can get them from other parties.

This Is A First Amendment Issue

While gun control advocates are quick to make this issue solely about firearms and the Second Amendment, the truth is, this case is about the First Amendment. This case is about the expression of ideas and the sharing of knowledge. 

Cody Wilson isn't manufacturing firearms. He's not making guns and illegally selling them. He is literally posting the data for people to make their own firearms. There are books upon books out there that teach people how to assemble their guns.

This case is important, because it will set a precedent for what kind of intellectual property can and cannot be shared with others. 

The Lack of Knowledge Plagues the Conversation

The average American is unaware of what gun control laws are on the books. They're unaware of different amendments and acts that are rarely talked about in the mainstream news. When members of the mainstream media follow the talking points put out by gun control groups and they fail to do their own research or fact checking, all they're doing is spreading misinformation. That's when we hear the same talking points that make no sense. That's when we're automatically told we should be on board with another gun control proposal. They rely solely on an emotional appeal to convince their followers instead of based on fact and logic.

FBI Agent on Trial for Lying and Obstruction After Bundy Siege Shooting

While Peter Strzok is getting all the current attention as the archetypical lying FBI agent, an Obama era case of FBI lying is finally going to trial in Oregon. A conviction might put pause to the behavior of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team when they are dealing with politically incorrect protesters.

FBI Special Agent W. Joseph Astarita is now on trial in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division before Senior District Judge Robert E. Jones for shooting at Robert LaVoy Finicum and then lying about the two shots he fired. Finicum was stopped at a joint federal/state roadblock as he was leaving the site of the Bundy siege/standoff at the the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

Finicum was shot in the back multiple times by two Oregon State Police troopers on January 26, 2016. While the two OSP troopers weren’t charged, evidence collected at the scene by Deschutes County Sheriff’s deputies indicated that at least two shots were fired from positions occupied by the FBI HRT.

Multiple FBI agents were caught on video searching for and then removing spent casings from the two shots, which missed Finicum, but hit another member of his group. Astarita was later indicted in 2017 for lying about firing those two shots and obstruction of justice. No one else in the FBI has been indicted for removing those cartridge cases.

Founding Fathers Quote: At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Ben Franklin. This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review. - Benjamin Franklin, 1787

Kim Stolfer, President

Firearms Owners Against Crime