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 Weekly Message For Sunday December 22nd 2019 :: 12/22/2019
This past week freedom loving Pennsylvanians and gunowners were treated to two spectacles. The first was Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. Josh Shapiro confirming, once again, his anti-gun credentials by taking the law into his own hands by declaring that 80% receivers are now to be considered as firearms for the purposes of the Pennsylvania uniform firearms act and firearms transfers!
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has issued a legal opinion that reportedly rules “80%” receivers and frames are now considered to be firearms.
Josh Shapiro has always been rooted in the anti-gun, anti-constitutional camp since his days as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Now that he is Atty. Gen., he has taken it up a notch as he curries favors with his anti-gun Masters! It’s important to keep in mind that this Atty. Gen. is on record as not wanting to prosecute straw purchases of firearms.
So what does it take to buy a Pennsylvania Atty. Gen.? Apparently, it is at least one quarter of $1 million and that is the exact amount that the anti-gun desperado, Michael Bloomberg, gave to him in 2016!
Considering all the rhetoric in Congress about a supposed quid pro quo between the president and Ukraine it strikes me as oddly hypocritical that nothing is said about the connection between Shapiro and Bloomberg in the media! As you can see in the screen captures above, Adam Kraut lays out the issues very succinctly and pay particular attention to the dates in the 3rd screen shot. THIS is what REAL 'collusion' looks like!
However, all of us should understand that this decision on the part of the Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. is much worse than many seem to understand.
Any attempt to regulate something has to define that item…just so you’ll know what it is that’s being regulated. AG Shapiro has unilaterally defined “firearm” to take un-finished receivers and frames into account.
Pennsylvania law speaks of something which once was a firearm, and could “readily be restored” into one again.
“Converted” is turning one thing into another thing. That’s not the same thing at all. Shapiro, however, is a government lawyer so semantics are whatever he wants them to be.
Now that Shapiro has found a close-enough-for-government-work precedent, he’s settled on a basic test (pages 4 & 5) for what “readily” converted means. His opinion takes these factors into account:
As part of his analytical process, he dusted off a 39-year-old precedent, United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F. Supp, 565 (D.D.C. 1980).
In that case, the weapons were held not to be machine guns because it would have taken a master gunsmith (expertise) over 13 hours (time) working with specialized equipment (equipment), required parts that are not commonly available (availability), cost $65,000 to make the conversion, and the conversion could have damaged or destroyed the firearm as well as caused injury to the shooter upon firing.
Basically, Attorney General Shapiro decided that anything that requires less than 1) a master gunsmith, 2) 13+ hours, and 3) $65,000 to convert into a firearm is a firearm.
The required record keeping is going to be a nightmare for everyone including the Pennsylvania State Police.
In steps gun owners, once again, to take government to court. This time, Landmark Firearms LLC of Newville, Pennsylvania, US Rifle, LLC of Dublin, New Hampshire, Polymer80, Inc. of Dayton, Nevada, and FPC have stepped up to the plate and have filed an ‘emergency petition’ to stop the AG’s illegal actions. Representing the petitioners are Joshua Prince, Chief Counsel of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., and FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut. This petition and emergency motion has been filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and seeks an injunction against Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Commissioner Colonel Robert Evanchick following Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s press release and unlawful gun ban opinion mandating that PSP treat non-firearm objects and materials as regulated firearms. The court filings are available at pafirearmcase.com and FPCLegal.org.
Along with Attorney General Shapiro publishing his misguided December 16 opinion, the PSP modified its “Instant Check System” website to include a new rule the Commissioner apparently began enforcing on December 16. The rule in pertinent part says that, “[a]s of 12-16-19, the sale of partially-manufactured (often referred to as 80%) frames and receivers and kits which include the same, requires a background check through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System, in accordance with the Attorney General’s binding opinion and applicable requirements within the [Uniform Firearms Act]. No sales may occur by a licensed firearms dealer without such a check. PSP is not yet ready to process such checks. . .”
“Rule by executive fiat was rejected by the Thirteen American Colonies, including Pennsylvania, when they declared independence from England, and we reject such lawlessness today,” explained Kraut. “The Attorney General’s revisionist legal opinion adds an entire class of inanimate objects to the definition of ‘firearm’ under Pennsylvania law that the General Assembly never considered, nor intended. As such, we are requesting the Commonwealth Court to enjoin Commissioner Evanchick and his Pennsylvania State Police from implementing and enforcing any policy or practice that would follow the Attorney General’s misguided definitional structure.”
**Legislation Acted Upon in PA House that would Call for a Constitutional Convention
In addition to the Monday surprise by AG Shapiro, and as you likely know, fate and certain members of the state legislature had another ill-timed surprise for gunowners and constitutionalists, HR206 which would have called for a Convention of the States leading to a Constitutional Convention.
The PA House of Representatives State Government Committee brought HR206 up for a vote on Monday (the 16th). The bill passed the state government committee and began its journey to the floor by having its first reading the same day. Then on Tuesday the bill was amended in its second reading in preparation for the third reading and final vote on the floor scheduled for Wednesday. To say this was an unusual level of swiftness by the legislature on this controversial subject would be an understatement! Many gunowners asked where was this swiftness on preemption strengthening legislation (HB 1066) or other pro-gun legislation?
Gunowners and constitutionalists from across the state began engaging legislators as they awakened to the reality of this problem and the likelihood that it wouldn’t be being brought up if leadership didn’t think they had the votes. This contact from constituents and gunowners made a huge difference in the debate and many legislators who, while well-intentioned, were considering supporting this because of the problems we face in our nation became disillusioned once the facts on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention! Support for HR206 quickly evaporated to the point that leadership never brought the legislation up!
Beginning with Rep. Russ Diamond on Monday, who was the only Republican to vote against this bill coming out of the State Government Committee to a host of Republicans who expressed their deep concerns on Tuesday and Wednesday, many deserve credit for standing by our Constitution and respecting the public input they received! There were literally dozens of representatives who were outspoken in their opposition and we thank them all!
Final analysis; on social media, some gunowners seemed to be confused about this issue (none of them seemed to do their homework before commenting) and acted like anti-gunners in becoming personal instead of accepting that they might need to explore this issue more deeply. I think it’s safe to say that all of us recognize that there are problems within our government but these problems do not lie in the lack of controls within the Constitution, they lie in the frailties of men who fail to hold themselves and others accountable! Others fail to admit that a Constitutional convention would put the Second Amendment at risk and if you have friends who feel this way I suggest you share this link with them: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/27117-article-v-con-con-proponents-want-to-clarify-the-second-amendment. Remember, one of the arguments for this measure is that it can be limited to only two things and will NOT affect the 2nd Amendment and yet not even the founding fathers agreed with that. Depending on who you talk to, you will find that proponents will vacillate as to what will happen once a Constitutional Convention is called!
Below is a link to a video on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention. Please consider watching this video that shows a constitutional law expert who explains why everyone, especially gunowners, should be terrified of who is behind this effort and why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpewREdeAxI
The backers of this measure, the remaining Koch billionaire brother and George Soros, are shrouded in mystery by the COS organization. Interestingly, several legislators mentioned that the celebrity, Mark Levin, was in favor of COS yet they did not know that Levin was financially supported by the Koch brothers.
Founding Father James Madison said in a letter to Turberville in 1788, “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second”. Seems like good advice from a man that knows firsthand the dangers that a Constitutional Convention would present to our society!
2020 a Year of Possibilities and Dangers Confronting Our Constitutional Freedoms
The 2020 elections are going to be very high stakes. Then, there is that Supreme Court case heard earlier this month. That means that 2020 poses the potential for great danger and yet, there could also be great opportunities with regards to our rights.
We ‘all’ know that elections have obvious dangers and opportunities. THIS election, of course, risks seeing pro-Second Amendment lawmakers voted out. On the flip side, 2020 can also be the chance to replace anti-Second Amendment lawmakers.
The biggest prize in the 2020 election is, of course, the presidency. Donald Trump has largely been a supporter of the Second Amendment and has appointed pro-Second Amendment judges to the appellate courts. Take a good look at the front-runners to replace him. They are ALL hostile to our Second Amendment rights – and all plan to push an aggressive anti-Second Amendment agenda.
But the danger doesn’t just come from the usual laws we hear about. Several of these contenders have expressed support for a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College, including Warren and Buttigieg. All of them would nominate and appoint anti-Second Amendment judges. Some of these contenders (pretenders?) have promised worse.
In the case of Elizabeth Warren, she intends to weaponize the IRS against pro-Second Amendment organizations. Oh, she says it is just the National Rifle Association, but when she has argued that the failure of gun control to pass is due to “corruption,” then could other pro-Second Amendment groups be far behind?
Buttigieg is no better, even as he tries to take a more moderate tone. He was an early supporter of packing the Supreme Court with as many as six new justices. How do you think those justices would rule on anti-gun legislation? Or, for that matter, on campaign finance reform? It would not be good for either the First or Second Amendments.
Yet with all of these dangers come opportunities. The extreme agendas that some of these candidates are pushing will make many Americans recoil. We are already seeing this in Virginia, as the initial steps of effective civil disobedience are in full swing. Already, anti-Second Amendment extremists are backing off a total ban on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms.
In addition, the election will bring other opportunities as well – a chance to return pro-Second Amendment leadership to the House of Representatives, a chance to increase the pro-Second Amendment majority in the Senate, a chance to get more pro-Second Amendment state lawmakers, a chance for pro-Second Amendment governors, and perhaps most importantly, returning President Trump to the White House for four more years.
With Trump coming back, and a pro-Second Amendment Senate, the continued confirmation of pro-Second Amendment federal judges would continue to reshape the courts.
These are dangerous times for our First and Second Amendment rights. However, these times are also a great chance to change the political landscape in a manner that will advance the cause of freedom. Whether 2020 will be remembered for danger or opportunity is up to us.
Today’s Gun Control Fight Goes FAR Beyond Elections & Legislation
One thing is becoming more and more clear – the legislative and political arenas are now only part of the overall battle over our Second Amendment rights. While Second Amendment supporters have done well in those arenas, the new arenas threaten to overwhelm the gains in the political and legislative arenas.
These arenas include, but they are not limited to, corporate gun control, leveraging pop culture, Silicon Valley censorship, and social stigmatization. The fact of the matter is anti-Second Amendment extremists have developed their plans in case they suffer a substantial reverse in the Supreme Court. The right ruling would strike down anti-Second Amendment legislation and secure the legal rights we seek, but those rights could very well end up being a dead letter.
Let’s start with corporate gun control. The wallet has always been the Achilles heel of the firearms industry. When Andrew Cuomo was quarterbacking big-city lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the goal was to force companies to choose between accepting settlements that forced them to agree to the agenda of anti-Second Amendment extremists or go bankrupt from massive legal fees against dozens of plaintiffs.
This new corporate gun control is operating on the same principle – at least where banks and financial institutions are concerned. The goal is this: Maybe they can’t pass a law that prohibits manufacturing modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms, but if banks deny business to those who make AR-15s or component parts, then the AR-15 will eventually fade away – without any laws passed to ban it.
Silicon Valley’s censorship is just as threatening as corporate gun control. Social media and the internet have become crucial for Second Amendment supporters to not only get facts out, but to coordinate their activism and to help each other out. Shut down the voices, either through a one-sided application of rules of conduct, and all of a sudden, Second Amendment supporters are cut off. This is what Instagram is doing with its new rules, for instance.
Meanwhile, anti-Second Amendment extremists are leveraging pop culture. Think of it this way – Hollywood stars generate press, even when they are not at the A-List levels of celebrity like Angelina Jolie or Meryl Streep. In fact, these days, it’s about getting press for those who have seen better days, like Alyssa Milano. In the fierce competition, anti-Second Amendment advocacy can help an actor or actress get work and keep a career going. It would also include what gets included in storylines on hit TV shows.
That celebrity power then helps generate the social stigmatization of gun ownership and Second Amendment support. That social stigmatization has been a long-time goal, going back to Eric Holder’s famous desire to “brainwash” Americans against guns. In this case, it is about making it so painful to defend our rights that you choose silence and acquiescence rather than lose out on promotions, being the outcast in your neighborhood, or even seeing your family face being berated – or worse.
The fact of the matter is that while the political and legislative battles to defend our rights are important, they have never been the only battles we have to fight.
CDC Gun Control Propaganda Wing Funded Once More
After 23 years of ‘common sense’ restrictions against government (taxpayer) funded biased gun control research through the CDC, on Monday (12/16), House and Senate negotiators announced a deal where $25 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on gun violence research. Half of all that money, $12.5 million, is earmarked exclusively for public health researchers. If history is any guide, most of the rest will also end up going to public health researchers.
Headlines claimed: “Congress reaches deal to fund gun violence research for first time in decades.” The funding described as “a major win for Democrats.” While that may sound like a good idea at first glance, it wouldn’t do anything to reduce gun violence in our country.
Here’s the crux of it. Gun control advocates are churning out press releases and official statements from their elected offices about how this is the first time in a quarter-century Congress funded gun research at the Centers for Disease Control. It all hinges on the 1996 Dickey Amendment, named for its author former Congressman Jay Dickey (R-Ark.). The amendment states, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
Dickey Amendment Explained
The amendment was added after a 1993 CDC-funded study took an advocacy position linking gun ownership in the home to increased risk of death by a family member or friend. It might also have something to do with Dr. Patrick O’Carroll, the CDC’s Acting head of Division of Injury Control, saying, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”
He wasn’t alone. The Assistant Dean of Harvard’s School of Public Health Dr. Deborah Prothrow-Stith wrote in her book Deadly Consequences, “I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
Not exactly what we’d call scientifically objective is it?
The media assertions that guns and gun ownership couldn’t be studied is a dubious claim too. The studies never stopped. Congress did pull $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget the same year they passed the Dickey Amendment. It’s also true that the $2.6 million was the exact same amount that was used for the bogus policy-pushing study. Congress sent a clear message to the CDC that It’s not your job to lobby for gun control policies.
It’s simply not true that the funding for research hasn’t been there, as antigun advocates and their allies in Congress would have the public believe. The CDC’s budget has more than tripled since the Dickey Amendment was passed to over $6 billion. If the CDC was being told they couldn’t study anything gun-related, they didn’t listen very well. During that time, the CDC studied guns and suicide, noise and lead exposure at ranges, firearm violence prevention in Wilmington, Del., and issued a report on firearms homicides and suicides in metropolitan areas. That doesn’t include studies by the FBI, Department of Justice and Congressional studies.
There was also that instance in 2013 when President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order directing $10 million in “gun violence” research.
The CDC spent the money and published the results. It might not be a study gun control champions want when the objective studies concluded “defensive uses of guns” are more effective than “self-protective strategies,” that the “number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” that gun show “loophole” accounted “for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals,” that the majority of criminal violence with firearms is related to mental-health issue, among many other unhelpful things, as reported by the National Review.
Just last year, President Donald Trump signed a spending bill that included an amendment clarifying what the Dickey Amendment actually says and, more importantly, never said:
“While appropriations language prohibits the CDC and other agencies from using appropriated funding to advocate or promote gun control, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has stated the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.”
Gun control promoters were jubilant then too. U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was so thrilled he sent a letter telling Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar he should start on the issue immediately.
Those who love the idea of having doctors (who kill 11 times as many Americans through their medical mistakes as guns) study guns to push criminal violence as a health policy issue are selling snake oil. The American public knows this. Eight out of ten Americans surveyed said “gun violence” is a criminal issue, not a public health issue. It’s akin to telling someone who is fit they must lose weight because of American’s obesity issue. Taking away from one doesn’t cure the other.
The Self-Admitted Protector of the Constitution – Nancy Pelosi – Continues Her War on the 2nd Amendment by Peddling Fake Stats
In her continuing support of the Democrats’ agenda on gun control, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been repeatedly using the disingenuous “save the children” diatribe. “It has been over 200 days since the House passed life-saving background checks legislation,” Pelosi complained in September. “100 people die every from gun violence — 47 of them children & teenagers. How many more must perish before [Mitch McConnell] will take action?”
The trouble is that Pelosi’s incessantly repeated statistic (lies?) regarding the number of children and teenagers killed via firearms every day is all a lie. Pelosi is SO wrong, in fact, that even the anti-gun supporting Washington Post felt compelled to correct her egregiously inaccurate talking point. The Post noted that Pelosi’s repeated false statistical assertions began with a claim that 47% of people killed by guns were children and teenagers (up to 19 years of age). When questioned about the clearly flawed statistic, a Pelosi spokesman claim she had “misspoken” and had meant to say 47 children and teenagers.
However, the Post elected to engage in a rare instance of genuine investigative journalism (that must’ve hurt) and discovered that “for months, in speeches, news conferences, tweets and interviews, Pelosi has been using a version of an completely wrong talking point to make the firearms death toll for teenagers and children appear significantly higher than reality.” What are the facts? “Fewer than 9 percent of those killed by guns are 19 or younger — not 47 percent. Seven children or teenagers are killed a day — not 47.” As a result, the Post awarded Pelosi “four Pinocchio’s” for her outright lies.
But the REAL story is being ignored. Its “fact checker” might take Pelosi to task for getting the statistics wrong, but he’s not going to tell you the real story either: Most of the seven “kids” killed every day are urban, fatherless gang-bangers. They’re often older teenagers who are shooting rival gang members over drugs or territory or whatever other grievance. It’s not a gun problem; it’s a culture problem, and it’s based in Democrat urban centers.
Puerto Rico Changes Gun Laws to Respect the Second Amendment
On December 11, 2019, Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced signed Act No. 168. into law. The new law totally re-writes Puerto Rico firearms law. It is the most sweeping change in firearms law in the history of Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, the possession of firearms has always been regarded as a privilege, not as a Constitutional Right.
Puerto Rico had one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the United States, arguably more restrictive than California, Hawaii, or New York. There were only about 225,000 legally owned firearms in Puerto Rico in 2016, giving it one of the lowest levels of legal firearm ownership in the United States, at about 6.6 legal firearms per 100 people.
Two things seem to have led to the massive reform of Puerto Rico firearms law.
- First, the actions of the United States Supreme Court in recognizing the Constitutional protections of the Second Amendment in the Heller and later, the McDonald, Supreme Court cases.
- Second, the utter failure of the extremely restrictive Puerto Rico gun control scheme.
While Puerto Rico has had extreme infringements on Second Amendment rights, it has had extreme crime and murder rates, far higher than any state in the United States. Puerto Rico's murder rate averages four times the murder rate of the United States as a whole.
In 2016, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows Puerto Rico with 19.9 murders per 100,000 population. Louisiana is the closest state with 11.8 murders per 100,000 population. The District of Columbia, as a federal territory, edges out Puerto Rico with 20.4 murders per 100,000. The District of Columbia is one of the few places in the United States that could claim, in 2016, to have more infringements on Second Amendment rights than Puerto Rico.
Perhaps this is why, when those pushing for a disarmed society compare gun control regimes and crime rates, they conspicuously ignore Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. 2016 is not an outlier. It is representative of the last 20 years, at least.
Under the new law, a permit to own includes the right to carry a firearm for defense in public, if the firearm is concealed. Obtaining a permit to carry, under the old system, was even more difficult and costly than obtaining a permit to own a firearm.
Puerto Rico will recognize all other firearm permits issued in the United States or territories of the United States. This warning, in Spanish and English, is to be posted at all ports and airports:
Every person, not authorized to have firearms under Puerto Rico laws, and who does not hold a valid weapons permit issued in any State, enclave, possession or territory of the United States of America, who brings a firearm with him/her or in his/her luggage, must give immediate notice to the Ports Authority Security Office and an officer of the Police Bureau of Puerto Rico upon arrival. Noncompliance with this notice may carry prison penalties. The Ports Authority Security Office and/or an Authorized Agent will inform you on how to proceed with your weapon.”
Under the new law, “assault weapons” are banned, except for those people with a firearms permit.
Under the new law, target shooting is to be encouraged by the government of Puerto Rico. The establishment of clubs, shooting organizations, and competitions are to be promoted by the government.
While the requirement to apply and pay for a firearms permit may seem burdensome to gun owners in many states, Act No. 168 is an enormous step toward respecting Second Amendment rights in Puerto Rico.
Consider: The permit must be issued. The permit includes the right to carry for self-defense. There is complete recognition of all permits issued in the United States.
If the Supreme Court further clarifies and restores those protections, as expected, the law will be subject to revision to bring the benefits of the Second Amendment to Puerto Rico.
The law goes into effect on 1 January 2020.
Regulations are being written to conform to the new law. If you are traveling to Puerto Rico, it is recommended you determine the details of the regulations before traveling.
Quote of the Week: Opponents of the Second Amendment who are eager to impose as many restrictions as possible on firearms falsely claim that a measure enacted in 1996 called the Dickey Amendment – named after former Rep. Jay Dickey, (R-AR) – barred research on gun violence to be funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But in reality, here is what the reviled Dickey Amendment states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”
The point of that plain language is to say CDC-funded research is fine. CDC advocacy is not. So despite what gun-control zealots say, objective research based on facts is allowed under the Dickey Amendment.
The amendment came in response to top CDC officials advocating various gun control laws, such as prohibiting people from carrying concealed handguns.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns falsely claimed in a 2013 report that as a result of the Dickey Amendment “academic publishing on firearm violence fell by 60 percent between 1996 and 2010.”
1st Point to Ponder: Rep. Eric Swalwell told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Tuesday, Fox News reports “We can only conclude that you’re guilty”. Swalwell was trying to exploit President Donald Trump’s refusal to buckle to Democrat demands on impeachment documents and witnesses.
“In America, innocent men do not hide and conceal evidence,” Swalwell pressed on. “They are forthcoming and they want to cooperate and the president is acting like a very guilty person right now.”
“I believe the Fifth Amendment was just repealed on live television,” Ben Williamson, communications director for Rep. Mark Meadows, tweeted in response.
2nd Point to Ponder: U.S. House of Representatives Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been called out by the Washington Post Fact Checker for repeating a blatant falsehood about the number of children who die every day from so-called “gun violence”
Pelosi has repeatedly claimed that 100 people die every day from “gun violence,” and asserted that 47 of them are children and teens. But the Washington Post did some math, noting that 60 percent of firearms-related deaths are suicides, and wrote “It seemed strange that so many children would be killing themselves with guns.” The newspaper checked data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and concluded Pelosi was way off base, yet she has repeated the false narrative.
3rd Point to Ponder: “What does the sure odds that Democrats will absolutely reject any duly-elected Republican president really mean? It means they won’t accept the results of any election they don't win. When you hate each other but still accept election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to civil war!” ~ Jack Minzey
Today (12/18/2019), the Biden Campaign in a new series of ads said:
“We can’t, and we will not, let this man (DJT) be reelected…”
Anti-Gunners in Government Agencies – CDC – Comments: Dr. Patrick O’Carroll, the CDC’s Acting head of Division of Injury Control, saying, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”
Gun Control Quote to Remember: The Assistant Dean of Harvard’s School of Public Health Dr. Deborah Prothrow-Stith wrote in her book Deadly Consequences, “I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
Founding Father’s Statement on Freedom: "No compact among men . . . can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other."- George Washington, draft of first Inaugural Address, 1789
Yours in Freedom!
Kim Stolfer, President
As a reminder, every gun owner can participate in the January 12, 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/709303479?pwd=T2w4dERnb3k4NUtpWi9ZRS9FY1lkUT09
One-tap Mobile: US: +19292056099,, 709303479# US (New York)
Dial by location: +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 709 303 479
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adSioEAVyf