PA Bill Number: SB945

Title: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals.

Description: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals. ...

Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (199-0)

Last Action Date: Apr 17, 2024

more >>

More events

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday March 17th 2019 :: 03/17/2019

The last week has seen so many stupid, underhanded occurrences related to gun control that it is hard to pick one so we went with the top three winners but once again the city of Pittsburgh manages to rise to the top.

On Wednesday, March 13 there was a committee meeting to discuss adding research and an amendment to the three illegal gun laws the city is pursuing. Interestingly there was no public notice of this meeting agenda but somehow Councilman O’Connor found a way to notify the anti-gun groups and even a couple of doctors from UPMC to attend. Then the media portrayed it as there was no opposition to testify against these developments yet they failed to make a mention of the fact that no public notice was given. Bias?

So below you will see what goes for justification for violating Pennsylvania criminal law by the city of Pittsburgh Council. Please note when looking at the materials that it appears from public articles that neither Councilman Strasburger, O’Connor, nor Council President Krause have read or comprehended anything in these documents.

The research attachments are available:

At the core of this level of stupid on the part of certain members of Council is the belief that somehow confusing the public with a bunch of biased academic garbage is going to justify illegal acts that are prohibited by Pennsylvania state law. Perhaps in the “political Harry Potter world” that these Council persons live in this kind of silliness is justified but in the real world the “and’s do not justify the means” when it comes to adhering to the law!

It seems that the city of Pittsburgh is recalcitrant and unwilling to retract their illegal acts as evidenced by the fact that on March 20 there is going to be an introduction of an amendment that will somehow make the illegal laws more palatable. If you’re interested in attending the city of Pittsburgh Council meeting where this will be discussed please be there at 10 AM.

No matter what Pittsburgh city Council does to try to justify these laws we are prepared to follow through with not only criminal charges but also a lawsuit to make sure that Pennsylvania preemption law continues to be an effective deterrent against politicians run amok!

Media Bias Revealed Again by Ignoring the Failure of 'Restrictive' New Zealand Gun Laws at Stopping Mosque Massacres as Well as Ignoring the Self-Defense Act at the 2nd Mosque

The media has rounded up all the usual suspects and fired up their ‘blame game machine’, right down to indicting Trump, white males, and guns while championing Islamic migrants. In the frenzied and hate-fueled mob-inciting, media scramble to get scoops before all the facts are in, it seems that it would be helpful to introduce some known information into the New Zealand quagmire.

“New Zealand gun laws face scrutiny after Christchurch attack,” The Guardian claims. “Unlike UK and Australia there is no ban on semi-automatic military-style weapons.” Please disregard, for a moment, that the media claimed the weapons were “automatic,” reflecting the admitted intent of the Violence Policy Center to sow public confusion, the go-to authority consulted, for this article, is Philip Alpers, founding director of GunPolicy.org.

It’s instructive to consult what that organization has to say about New Zealand gun law and to note what the “mainstream” media is deliberately not telling us. Because per Alpers’ website, “The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive … In New Zealand, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.”

It’s true, as is being claimed, that there is no ban, per se, on semi-autos. Instead:

“In New Zealand, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a Military-Style Semi Automatic (MSSA) licence endorsement. Each MSSA must be registered to its owner and securely stored when not in use.”

Also, of relevance from the site:

“In New Zealand, private possession of fully automatic weapons is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a ‘collector' licence endorsement. Each automatic or restricted weapon must be registered to its owner, and disabled when not in use.

“In New Zealand, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is restricted to police-approved licensed gun owners with a ‘pistol’ licence endorsement. Each handgun must be registered to its owner and securely stored.”

Special license endorsement firearms require a “genuine reason” for possession, “including sports shooting, hunting, and collection. Owning a firearm for self-defence is specifically excluded, and prohibited.”

New Zealand requires criminal and mental health checks with third-party character references. It has licensing and registration “of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition.” It has domestic violence prohibitions. Compare that to the “Universal Background Check” and “Red Flag/ERPO” edicts demanded for the U.S. as “common sense.” Private sales require a license, and “The buyer of a firearm in a private sale in New Zealand is obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession.”

Yet still, it is not enough, which tracks with experience here. What’s left is a total ban, something “common sense gun safety law” proponents (anti-gunners) dismiss as NRA propaganda, but which the less restrained in the anti-gun community have demanded on too many occasions to ignore.

Anti-Gun Politicians Continue to Embrace Operation Choke Point or Sanctioned Government Financial Extortion.

One of the most despicable Obama Administration scandals was Operation Choke Point which involved federal regulators pressuring banks and payment processors to cut ties with lawful firearm businesses that whom either offended anti-gun sensibilities ‘or’ were seen as vulnerable to government abuse. This program was known as Operation Choke Point (OCP), and it struck at the heart of the rule of law.

No business in America could survive if it had to comply not just with all the binding laws that regulators saddle the country’s companies and employers with but also with the personal ideological baggage and politics of all 535 federal legislators, plus those of thousands of federal bureaucrats.

Nor could any business survive if it had to answer for every unaffiliated person who abused or misused one of its products or services.

That is why America is often said to be a country of laws, not men.

However, on Tuesday (3/12), anti-2^nd Amendment U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) unabashedly embraced these ‘Choke Point’ tactics openly using the guise of her federal authority to berate and not so subtly threaten a bank for lawfully serving businesses that don’t reflect her political views.

Maloney, excoriated Wells Fargo bank (the only witness at the four hours plus hearing) for refusing to follow the lead of other national banks that had refused or severed business with members of the gun industry that did not “voluntarily” adopt certain gun control “best practices” that exceed the requirements of federal law.

These practices include banning long gun purchases by young adults eligible for military service and refusing to recognize the 3-day default transfer option that gun dealers may exercise if the FBI does not complete a background check. They also just happened to mirror policy goals that anti-gun Democrats – a category that includes Maloney herself – have been pursuing through legislation they have not to date been successful in enacting.

Maloney, in other words, was not accusing Wells Fargo of having done anything illegal by transacting with members of the firearm industry. Rather, she was criticizing the bank for not imposing anti-gun rules that Congress itself has failed to adopt.

IF you want to see abuse of power and position to advance personal agendas on display, the entire sordid exchange can be seen on this video, starting at 48:03.

Pennsylvania State Democrats Introduce HB 768, Known As The Firearms Registration Act.

Rep. Angel Cruz has introduced his base placating, anti-gun gun registry lollipop once again – HB 768 – in the State House and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The bill would require ALL Pennsylvania gun owners to register their firearms with the Pennsylvania State Police. Owners would have to provide the police with the make, model, and the serial numbers of all their guns.

Along with the application that the gun owner must swear to under oath, the gun owner would have to submit fingerprints, two photographs that are no older than 30 days and go through a background check for each firearm that they own. This background check is the same one that they must go through to purchase a gun.

In addition to this requirement, they must also provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their home and work address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, age, sex, and citizenship.

If the State Police rejects the person's application, then they will have 10 days to appeal the decision. The owner must turn their firearms into the State Police within 3 days of receiving notification of the rejection. If a person does not appeal the decision within 10 days, their right is forfeit.

A gun owner will NOT be able to transfer any unregistered firearm. Anyone caught with an unregistered gun is guilty of a crime even if they are unaware of the firearm registration status. Also just holding an unregistered firearm at a range is a crime.

The gun owner must keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. If a firearms owner doesn't secure their firearm that way, they would be guilty of a crime. This rule even applies to homes with no children.

The gun owner has 48 hours to update the State Police if they change jobs, phone numbers, addresses, or anything else on the application. If they do not update the State Police, then they could be prosecuted for violating the law.

EACH firearm certificate will cost $10 and must be renewed annually for EACH firearm. The gun owner would have to start the process over again to renew their certification. This process must be done 60 days before the certificate expires. The procedure would be enormously burdensome for gun owners with large collections.

It must be noted that this legislation will NOT make it through the legislature. Rep. Cruz is running for Philadelphia City Council and he is playing to his base. The REAL DANGER is that this legislation will distract gun owners from truly dangerous legislation like Extreme Risk Protection Orders currently in the legislature!

One final point is that anti-gun groups like CeaseFire PA and Mom’s Demand Action ‘always’ say they are ‘not’ for taking away people’s guns! Well ask yourself this, IF that is true then why are they NOT criticizing this legislation? It would clearly put in place ‘clearly’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL law that would deprive many citizens of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms because of bureaucratic overreach!! The reason is that ‘this’ language ‘came’ from CeaseFire PA and they ‘agree’ with it. Remember that in politics, silence is tacit approval!!

Anti-Gun Group Representative for Moms Demand Action Publicly Criticized for INACCURATE Testimony in Florida Committee by a DEMOCRAT no less!

Ms. Shannon Guse, speaking on behalf of Moms Demand Action, made patently false statements in her testimony about HB-403. But she didn't get away with it. Democrat Ranking Committee Member, Rep. Michael Grieco, called her out in front of the Committee for her inaccurate testimony.

Rep. Michael Grieco told Shannon Guse, “I have concerns when there are statements made that are just blatantly inaccurate.” He also said statements about guns going into jails and prisons are completely inaccurate… that's not what's happening ma'am. I have worked with you folks for several years now, I'm with you, but when you come in here, you've got to be accurate.”

Prior to Rep. Greico's reprimand of Moms Demand Action's Shannon Guse, Rep. Byron Donalds (R) told Committee Members that the intent of the bill is clear and “the other thing that's clear, given the public testimony [of opponents], is that I'm not sure if they actually read the bill.”

This is certainly not the first time, certainly won’t be the last, that speakers on behalf Moms Demand Action Deliver inaccurate testimony but it is the first time Committee members (both Democrat and Republican) have taken them to task for inaccurate testimony.

The same thing is happening here in Pennsylvania on a routine basis, half-truths and lies are their currency in trade in Harrisburg. This demonstrates the importance of gun owners staying informed as much as we can to counter these lies!

2nd Amendment Sanctuaries and the Rule of Law

Recently some very pro-2nd Amendment localities have begun to take a page from opponents of the enforcement of immigration laws. That page is to declare their counties to be “2nd Amendment sanctuary” jurisdictions. It is very ironic that the very anti-2nd Amendment politicians, many of whom also support the “sanctuary city” concept, are now quite irritated about this new development.

Look, 2nd Amendment supporters want to preserve the rule of law. It’s one reason why many of us are SO frustrated when the laws on the books governing the misuse of firearms in crimes are not used. A few years back, Chris Brown, who had been convicted of a felony for seriously injuring his then-girlfriend Rhianna in a beating, was caught with guns and drugs. It would have been easy to lock away Mr. Brown for up to four decades. But the gun laws were NOT used.

And yet despite the non-enforcement of laws, when bad stuff happens, these anti-2nd Amendment politicians come out and demand that all of the law-abiding citizens surrender more of their 2nd Amendment rights. This leads to a lot of frustration on the part of 2nd Amendment supporters.

What is happening, though, in many of the very red areas of states that find themselves dominated by major cities, is the declaration of 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.

It’s important to note that these sanctuary declarations are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is good to see officials following their oaths to defend the Constitution. Ultimately, that is where their primary loyalty must lie – not to any party, or to what is passed by the legislature. As John Marshall said in his Marbury v. Madison opinion, “the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature.”

There is a problem, though, but it is not with the intentions of those setting up the sanctuaries. The problem is how this is coming across. This is where good strategy and tactics, mindfulness of how we come across to our fellow Americans, and having good contacts with local media will matter. For instance, do you think Governor Grisham will be so eager to prosecute a person who loans a woman fleeing an abusive partner a handgun for personal protection?

Defying anti-2nd Amendment laws is one of the more aggressive options out there. It is easy to make the case to 2nd Amendment supporters about doing so with regards to “universal” background checks as they are a form of backdoor registration, but we must recognize that there is a much larger audience out there we must reach. We must convince our fellow citizens who are either not strongly on either side, or even leaning towards some measures to support, if not outright elimination of those unjust laws, then at least to start making them less onerous.

Anti-2^nd Amendment (Gun Banners) Don’t Really Want to Have a ‘Conversation’

Time and again, we hear from those advocating for more gun control laws who insinuate, with a sense of moral superiority, that we need to have a “conversation” on guns. The goal, they say, is to reduce violence, suggesting that they are somehow more evolved, educated and connected.

Yet, just this week, some anti-gun activists and politicians were caught red-handed fantasizing about wanting to shoot politicians and gun rights advocates as well as suggesting the “doxing,” or publicly posting private information, on gun owners.

In one instance, a woman attending the Connecticut General Assembly’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary hearing on several gun control bills, was photographed texting a threat against Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson and NRA members.

“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a photo of the text message reads. The anti-gun activist was escorted from the hearing. Later, Sampson said that wasn’t the first time he’s been threatened with violence for standing up for the Constitutional rights of Connecticut citizens. No charges were filed against the woman.

Doxing Tactics - Maryland Democrat Party Secretary Robbie Leonard recently posted photos to social media following a Maryland House Judiciary Committee meeting. The marathon gun control hearing saw law-abiding citizens exercising their right to attend the hearing, politely protesting by wearing “We Will Not Comply” t-shirts.

That was too much for the anti-gun Democrat Party staffer, Leonard. He posted photos of Maryland citizens, some of whom his party surely represents, to social media platforms with the message, “I hope the FBI runs the name of every witness who is wearing a t-shirt that says ‘We Will Not Comply. They’re a bunch of terrorists in the making.”

He didn’t end with just the character attack. He took it a step further and may have violated state law. “Time to dox some homegrown terrorists,” read another Leonard social media post.

Doxing is when personal and private information of an individual or organization is published over the Internet with malicious intent. Maryland law specifically prohibits doxing. And, last we checked, freedom of expression is still a First Amendment right.

Maryland Democrat Executive Director Ben Smith attempted a half-hearted apology, and in so doing, blamed the gun rights protestors. He said the lawmaking process requires “sober and calm deliberation,” but added, “When activists wear shirts stating, ‘We will not comply’ with new firearm regulations, that action escalates the conflict and a willingness to flout the rule of law.”

It seems that the ‘conversation’ they want is ONLY if you agree with them!

Dick's Continues to Suffer After Choosing to Support Gun Control - Pulls Shotguns from Stores

Dick's Sporting Goods is committed to removing firearms from its stores. This reflects an ideological commitment by the chain's CEO, Edward Stack. The chain will be removing firearms from 125 of 720 stores. From retailtouchpoints.com:

DICK’S Sporting Goods is doubling down on its decision to tighten gun sales policies. The retailer will no longer sell firearms and select hunting gear at 125 of its 720+ namesake stores after testing the concept in 10 locations last year.

Nearly one year ago, DICK’S CEO Edward Stack admitted that the retailer’s assault rifle ban was “not going to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales standpoint.” The retailer stopped sales of the assault-style rifles at all 35 Field & Stream stores and ceased selling guns and ammunition of any kind to buyers under 21 after the Feb. 14, 2018 Parkland, Fla. high school shooting in which 17 people were killed.

Dick's decision to blame guns for societal ills has cost it considerably. From vox.com:

Many major gun companies have also since refused to do business with Dick’s. In one statement, O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc., the parent company of Mossberg guns, urged shoppers to “visit one of the thousands of pro-2nd Amendment firearm retailers to make their purchases.”

Dick’s has suffered financially; one shareholder last year even accused the company of “willfully giving up money.” As of November 2018, its sales were down almost 4 percent, and many gun rights advocates have pledged to stay away from its stores. In the investor call, Stack said that Dick’s continues “to see double-digit declines” in its gun business, and that the company “would expect that [sales] continue to be down.”

Dick's showed its antipathy toward guns and the 2nd Amendment, when it announced it would destroy the guns, it was no longer selling in its stores, in February of 2018. It takes a special kind of stupid to commit to an ideology not connected to your business, to destroy inventory worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Showing disdain for 2nd Amendment supporters does not seem to be a wise business decision.

Connecticut Supreme Court Ignores Federal Law in Allowing Remington Advertising to be Responsible for Violent Crimes with Firearms – ‘IS the Prosecution of Car Makers Next’?

The 4-3 split decision by the Connecticut state Supreme Court that reinstated a lawsuit against Remington Arms over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used in the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting strains logic, if not common sense!

This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles.

Lanza, 20, first killed his mother and took her legally-purchased Bushmaster rifle to the school, where he murdered 20 youngsters and six adults. The lawsuit contends that Remington’s advertising was designed to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and enhance its appeal to younger consumers.

Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the “regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the state’s police powers.”

The lawyer for the families said “Remington’s goal was to expand the market for the AR-15 by courting HIGH RISK USERS.” The court apparently said that the victims’ families should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by “marketing what it knew was a weapon designed for military use to civilians, and to prove that Remington “marketed the gun to civilians for criminal purposes.” Ignore for the moment the fact that no military force since Korea has armed its soldiers with semi-automatic weapons. I think we’ve all seen the commercials where Remington says “want to kill a lot of people quickly? Forget bombs and poison and every other kind of weapon out there… the Remington AR-15 is for you.

Just ‘imagine’ how happy lawyers are to see this ruling! You see, for many years, ever since cars were invented, car companies have been marketing their cars for SPEED. DANGEROUS levels of speed. All sports cars (Porsche, mustangs, corvettes, Camaros, just to name a few) are specifically designed and marketed for illegal speed. You don’t even have to watch their commercials, though we’ve all seen them. Look at their websites, it’s open and obvious.

There is nowhere in the US where the speed limit is more than 85 MPH, and in most states, it is significantly less. Yet all of these cars are designed to travel at rates of speed GREATLY in excess of any posted speed limit.

Guess what? While there are, on average, less than 50 people a year killed with “so-called assault weapons,” the kind of guns the Sandy hook plaintiffs are essentially complaining about (according to the US Center for Disease Control, which keeps all those “cause of death” statistics,) and far less with AR-15s, there are about 10,000 people per year killed in car accidents involving excessive speed. (about the same number as killed in accidents involving alcohol,) and more than 5000, getting higher every year, in accidents involving distracted driving (texting.)

Is there any legitimate reason to market (or make) a car that goes faster than the legal speed limits? What possible social utility could be involved in the decision to make such a car (other than, of course, the desire to make (shudder) a profit? Under what circumstances could anyone possibly NEED a car that goes faster than the speed limit? And what purpose does marketing the speed capabilities of a car serve other than to encourage the EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL practice of using that unnecessary speed, all to the danger and destruction of the driver himself AND the innocent passers-by he wantonly kills. I personally have known people KILLED by nothing more than excessive speed in a car specifically built for excessive speed.

They sell tractor trailer trucks with speed controls. Why don’t they put them in cars? There cannot be a legal reason to make a car whose only purpose is to violate the law and kill people, right? If that’s what the car companies market it for, shouldn’t they be liable to the people killed, maimed or hurt by their unreasonably dangerous goods?

And by the way, shouldn’t we also sue the mobile phone companies who sell phones that can send texts when moving more than 15 MPH? 5000 per year unnecessarily dead? Extraordinarily cheap technology certainly exists that would disable a text feature on a mobile phone when that phone is moving more than, say, 10 miles per hour. Wouldn’t that save a ton of unnecessary deaths?

So WHERE does it all STOP!! Just sayin…

Videos: FOAC on NRA TV Discussing HB 768 – Cruz’ Gun Registry Legislation:

https://www.nratv.com/videos/relentless-kim-stolfer-pennsylvania-considers-gun-registration-scheme

IF you haven’t been to the FOAC Gun Bash yet, you may enjoy the opening remarks from yesterday’s (3/16/2018) gun bash: https://youtu.be/zI4FQ_fpXTQ

Founding Fathers Statement on Freedom: “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Federal Judge Kozinski, Silveira v. Lockyer

Yours in Freedom,

Kim Stolfer