PA Bill Number: HR74
Title: A Concurrent Resolution declaring that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is committed to equal rights for individuals with ...
Description: A Concurrent Resolution declaring that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is committed to equal rights for individuals with ...
Last Action: Reported as committed
Last Action Date: Apr 16, 2019
Sportsmen's Expo - 04/27/2019
North Franklin Volunteer Fire Company 565 Sylvan Drive, Washington, PA
2nd Amendment Rally - 05/6/2019
State Capitol Rotunda 501 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA
FOAC Monthly Meeting - 05/12/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA
FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday March 24th 2019 :: 03/24/2019
This past week has seen the City of Pittsburgh continue to try and evade the prohibitions of Pennsylvania’s Preemption law by amending the previous legislation with supposedly more narrow language. This ‘underhanded ploy’ is meant to distract the public and the media into thinking that Pittsburgh Council is acting responsibly when in fact this is another example of lawlessness and arrogance!
For instance, and as a reminder, the PA Preemption law (18 P.S. 6120) says:
“No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”
Are the council member advocates and City of Pittsburgh legal department ‘reading comprehension challenged’?? The law says VERY clearly, MAY IN ANY MANNER REGULATE!
Let’s be clear, this has NOTHING to do with making ‘anyone’ safer! This is about driving the gun control agenda down the throats of the public and manipulating the media to keep this issue center stage while state legislators are pressured to advance statewide gun control!
IF you have your doubts about this entire effort by Pittsburgh being calculated and coordinated keep this recent statement by Councilwoman Strassburger in mind:
“….I’m under no illusions that these three bills that we’re proposing here at city council are going to solve every mass murder or suicide, or , umm ya know really make a dent in in the problem of gun deaths, homicides, violence, and accidental deaths as they relate to guns, but umm they are part of a strategy that I believe will umm work it’s way up through the state and to the federal level and umm are really important first step, so that’s why we propose them. So, that’s all I’ll say”
We simple MUST understand these games being played so as to be forewarned of potential threats that develop!
We are continuing to monitor and track ‘everything’ Pittsburgh is doing in this area so we are prepared to deal with this at a moment’s notice!
FOAC attorney, Josh Prince, reached out to East Whiteland Township in regard to another ‘preemption violating ordinance’ that this township enacted on behalf of FOAC. Once notified of the illegality, and the potential legal consequences, the township directed the solicitor to begin the legislative process to repeal the ordinance. Many thanks to Josh Prince for his hard work on keeping local communities aware of their limitations!
Gun Control Logic (?) as Represented by Deaths from Drunk Driving
- Want to Stop Drunk Drivers from Killing Sober Drivers?
- Ban Sober Drivers from Driving.
That's EXACTLY the Mindset of How Gun Control Works.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Up for Consideration in US Senate (3/26)
On Tuesday (3/26) the Rubio Extreme Risk Protection Order bill (S.7) will come up in the US Senate Judiciary Committee. There is a great deal of information, including a study by Dr. John Lott, that shows that (at a minimum) this concept has been misrepresented as effective. In fact, one aspect of the impact of this legislation is actually a slight increase in rape.
The twin claims about Extreme Risk Protection Orders is that they will lower suicide rates and prevent homicides by hotheads and lunatics. It is the claim about homicides that we can dismiss.
As FOAC has always maintained, we are determined to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, lunatics and hotheads. It is these last two groups who are the target of Extreme Risk Protection Orders. The question is, what fraction of the gun owning population are these people? Quite small, actually.
- About 4% of the population has a severe mental illness.
- Common estimates are that 40–50% of households own guns, or about 50 million households, on the low end.
- Combined, that is about 2 million severely mentally ill people possibly in the proximity of a gun. But …
- Not all mental illness results in violent behavior
- Families with a member who is mentally ill are much more likely to avoid owning a gun; or at least they would lock it up. The rate, however, is not known.
Two million people – tops – who are mentally ill and might have access to a gun compares somewhat favorably to the number of street gang members in the United States – which, based on the major metro estimates we have examined, is likely around the two million mark as well. And we know street gangs have guns, know how to use them and employ them on a daily basis.
The point is that identifying a person with a violent mental illness, who has access to a gun, and who fits an Extreme Risk Protection Order criterion, is a rapidly shrinking number. Hotheads are even tougher to corner because of the subjectivity of evaluation (a shrink has a standard set of tools and definitions for a severe mental illness, whereas a police officer lacks the same for hotheads).
What does this really mean in terms of life and death? Not much. In the year Connecticut passed their law, a little over 100 people shot themselves dead. Seventeen years later, about the same (yes, their population rose 5% during that period, so the tiny reduction means something). Likewise, Indiana’s population rose nearly 7% since they enacted their Extreme Risk Protection Order law, but the number of people who killed themselves with a gun went up 45%. NOT a ringing endorsement and it’s interesting the media has ignored these kinds of comparisons.
In addition, there are significant constitutional due process issues with Extreme Risk Protection Orders… we expect them to be litigated for years to come. Ignoring that, we can say with safety that from an effectiveness standpoint, Extreme Risk Protection Orders do little. We won’t say “nothing at all.” But the serious trade-off between a robust deference to due process and the small number of lives Extreme Risk Protection Orders might save is distinct.
Mental health counseling and, where warranted, involuntary commitment under Mental Health Procedures Acts is a far better tool to protect those who are a danger to themselves and others and are experiencing a tough period in their life. People do recover from mental health issues and this is not a lifelong affliction. Florida authorities failed to use the Baker Act (the Florida version of PA’s MHPA) in the Parkland tragedy. This does not justify, in our view, expanding Ex Parte violations of Due Process rights and establishing a pre-crime environment in our justice system. It has already cost one life (Maryland) and a nationwide effort will lead to more in our view.
I know, we definitely won’t sway Sen. Casey but Sen. Toomey may be open to the importance of stopping this gun confiscation, due process violating legislation! It is important to keep reminding them in large numbers that we are here, we don't want any more gun control, and we are watching.
Also, let's contact the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, so he knows that gun owners do NOT want Red Flag laws. He can help keep the bill from getting a Floor vote if it clears the committee.
Here's a link to his contact form on the web:
For the Topic, select “Congressional Rules and Procedures”
Suggested subject: “Please do not let any ‘Red Flag' gun bills get a vote on the Senate Floor!
Extreme Risk Protection Orders, also known as “Red Flag” laws, such as S. 7, are about gun confiscation, not public safety.
Red Flag laws leave the “dangerous” person free to kill himself or others, as the law merely takes away his guns (assuming the police even find all his guns). If a person is too dangerous to have guns, how is anyone safer if he is still walking around with the rest of us? Red Flag laws also violate due process, as the accused doesn't have his day in court for weeks after his property (guns) has already been taken and he then has the almost impossible task of proving he's not dangerous. How do you prove a negative?
Protect America's gun owners and the Constitution – don't let S. 7, or any other Red Flag bills, get to the Floor!
New Zealand Mass Murderer's Primary Focus: Gun Control in the US
The mass murderer in New Zealand was not an ordinary active shooter. He is a political terrorist who is working to advance a political agenda. One of his primary goals is to further gun control in the United States. His manifesto clearly states that goal. From The Great Replacement:
Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural,political and racial divide within the United states.This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent, but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream.
The mass murderer studied the mass media, perhaps better than most political terrorists do. He saw their prejudices, their agendas, and structured his attack to use their weakness for his purposes. From his manifesto:
Why did you choose to use firearms?
I could have chosen any weapons or means. A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources.I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world.The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.
His study of the Media in the United States revealed to him the Media uses mass shootings to push for gun control in the United States, and elsewhere in the world. He wants the United States to balkanize. He re-emphasizes the point:
Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights from Whites in the United States?
Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, well soon will come the time.
His inspiration is the political terrorist who he has emulated, the Norwegian mass murderer who is in prison. Anders Brevik murdered 77 people, of which 69 were from a youth camp for the far left Norwegian political parties. Brevik wanted to stop the Muslim colonization of Europe. From the manifesto:
Were your beliefs influenced by any other attackers?
I have read the writings of Dylan Roof and many others, but only really took true inspiration from Knight Justiciar Breivik.
The mass murderer is clear that he is not a conservative. He is not a fan of limited government. He calls himself an eco-fascist and considers the political structure of Communist China as the closest political structure to his ideas. From the manifesto:
Were/are you a fascist?
Yes. For once, the person that will be called a fascist is an actual fascist. I am sure the journalists will love that. I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature. The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.
Sir Oswald Mosley was a prominent National Socialist in England before and during the Second World War. Modern “Communist” China is necessarily a National Socialist political system. The party running China makes the trains run on time. The Chinese Communists call their system Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
The more intelligent, committed, and coherent political terrorists are, the more dangerous they are. This attacker was/is more dangerous than most. He claims the attack was planned over two years, and was in retaliation for terror attacks by Muslims. As a more general note, he says his attack is in retaliation for 1300 years of Muslim aggression, conquest, and murder.
Here is a prediction, based on the murderer's agenda. The firearms he used will be found to have been manufactured in the United States. That works to advance his goal of pushing the Democrats in the United States to enact strict infringements on the Second Amendment. [And we can be sure that they will take the bait.]
U.S. Media MUST STOP Sharing Killers Names & Faces
There is one thing that most mass shooters have in common besides the SSRI medications. It is their desire to be known even if that means they are infamous. It all started when the Columbine killers had their names and faces plastered on every network across the globe. This media frenzy is the notoriety that they wanted and in death, the media awarded them their ultimate goal.
Last week there was a brutal attack in Christchurch New Zealand that left 49 people dead and many family members mentally scarred for life. One clear thing is that he wanted to be known and wanted to this notoriety to spread his sickening message of hatred. It was since followed by TWO more in rapid fashion in Europe in what some are calling Copycat events due to the notoriety.
The Charleston church killer inspired the New Zealand killer, and he planned to replicate his influence in other would be killers. He read articles and watched news stories about that murderer and wanted to follow in the shoes of the Charleston killer.
Should the media be blamed for the shooting in New Zealand? Absolutely not! The only one that responsible for senseless killings is the person pulling the trigger. The splattering of the Charleston killer's name and face all over the media didn't help though, and the media does bear some responsibility.
The first journalist that I know of that pushed for the media to stop naming and showing the pictures of these killers was Philip DeFranco. DeFranco is an independent journalist whose primary platform is YouTube.
Ben Shapiro is another media personality that has stopped naming these killers. Shapiro has one of the biggest podcasts in the world and is Chief Editor of the Daily Caller. His reasoning is to stop playing into these killer’s hands.
As researchers hold more studies into the contagion mass killings, just like with suicide, it becomes evident that by us as journalist naming the names of the killers it feeds into a vicious cycle. Even anti-gun professor Adam Lankford agrees with the coverage leads to more killings.
“Don't Name Them” centers their efforts around a study done by Texas State University that show the seeking of fame influences most mass shooters. They believe by the media plastering their names and faces everywhere it is causing copycat acts of violence, and they have the research to back up this assertion.
The group also links to the FBI's request for the media to stop using names and faces of mass killers. Most of the mainstream media ignore these requests. I for one can only guess that they feel like their ratings will take a hit if they don’t go for the killer angle. When acts of violence happens the public always wants to know who did it and why.
The New Zealand killer wanted his message spread across the world. The same goes for the Charleston Church killer. They are achieving their goal, but why should we give these murderers what they want? They don't care about jail or even the death penalty. They care about being famous and having their ideology spread. That needs to stop now!
NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Presidential Candidate) Is NOT Entitled to Her Own Facts, aka BS
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) visited New Hampshire voters last week, trying to make her mark in a crowded Democratic primary field. As a tactic, she decided to demonize firearms manufacturers. We’re not going to stay quiet.
Facts be damned. The junior senator from New York went full bore, leveling unfounded accusations, issuing factually nonsensical indictments and using the familiar buzz words of revisionist history that ring bells for those politicians seeking to burnish their gun-control bona fides with voters they can confuse.
And Now for Something Completely False
“Unfortunately, because the gun manufacturers only care about gun sales, they oppose the common sense reform that can save lives,” Sen. Gillibrand told her audience. “They want to oppose universal background checks because they want to sell an assault rifle to a teenager in a Walmart or to someone on a terror watch list or to someone who is gravely mentally ill with a violent background or to someone with a criminal conviction for a violent crime.”
All of this is patently false.
The senator also knows that so-called universal background checks are aimed at private gun sales, not the sales by retailers to private citizens that are already subject to background checks. The truth is she wants to make illegal the transfer of firearms between private parties.
Trafficking in Untruth
The senator’s end-run on the truth didn’t stop there, though.
“They want to sell those things, no matter what, to anybody,” Sen. Gillibrand continued. “It is why they will not do common sense things like have an anti-trafficking law. In a state like New York, our number one problem is guns used in crimes get trafficked from out of state right into the hands of gang members. They will not support an anti-federal gun trafficking law.”
Moreover, Department of Justice surveys shows guns used in crimes are obtained through theft and the black market. It’s another reason her quest for a universal background check bill is ill-conceived. Criminals aren’t stopping for background checks when they steal dozens of guns at a time in smash-and-grab thefts.
At one time, Sen. Gillibrand announced she kept “two guns under her bed.” While not the wisest storage option, she was aligning herself with law-abiding gun owners. That changed for her when faced with political headwinds and rising ambitions. More recently, she said she’s embarrassed by her previous stance.
While memories are short in Washington D.C., the rest of America remembers.
America’s Gun-Haters Are Only Biding Their Time
We all know what they want, the gun-grabbers that is. They tell us, just not in so many words. Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper beneath the surface – but the truth is always in there somewhere, buried for us to unearth. Like many things in life, you just have to find it, and in this case, your greatest tool is logic. It’s also the worst enemy of the freedom haters, and they’re just too dumb to know it.
To my point, I’ll start (and end) with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). At 6:42 PM on March,16th 2019, just a few days ago, Murphy sent this target-rich tweet:
Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt.
Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle to defend their home.
But mass shooters NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible. And so nobody will miss them when they are illegal – except for the killers.
Stop laughing! While the tweet (can you believe we live in an age where the word “tweet” is even a word, let alone a form of mass communication? I digress) is hilarious on its surface, the most essential part of it isn’t noticeable unless we dig. So, let’s dig.
- First, Chris Murphy is a lying politician, and no politician gets to tell me what I need. I don’t care if it’s healthcare, a food type or a choice of firearm. Oh, and while we’re digging, it can't be overlooked that the Second Amendment ain’t about hunting.
- Second, I do in fact, need an AR-15 to defend my home. That’s why I own several of them. It’s my choice to decide what gun or guns work best for my home defense, not his, and I choose to need several AR-15’s.
- Third, and this is where we get really close to unearthing the truth – mass shooters do NOT “NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible,” as the woefully ignorant Connecticut Senator states.
Of course, the Senator from (ironically) The Constitution State is merely leaving his hatred of other guns off the table for the time being. Unfortunately, he gets away with it because of a certain, and frankly, an astonishing degree of stupidity amongst the masses who fall for his deception. Murphy believes he can project his hatred of your gun rights onto the demonized AR-15 as it is currently politically expedient to do so on the heels of another mass killing, this time in New Zealand. By so doing he is hoping you won’t take notice of his hatred for all guns until the time is right.
Missouri Votes to Block Enforcement of Federal Gun Laws with 2A Preservation Act
In 2019, Missouri Senator Eric Burlison, Representative Jered Taylor, and representative Jeff Pogue have introduced versions of the Second Amendment Protection Act or SAPA. Here is a link to SB 367 introduced by Senator Burlison.
The bill uses several legal and Constitutional strategies to protect Second Amendment rights from infringement by both the Federal government and various Missouri governments.
The principle Constitutional strategy is the anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been well established in Constitutional law and in the Supreme Court cases of New York v. United States (1992, decided 6-3) and Printz v. United States (1997) and Independent Business v. Sebelous (2012).
These cases validate the doctrine that the Federal government has no power to force state agencies or officers to do what the Federal government orders them to do. The Federal government can require actions for the state to receive funds from the Federal government, but that is all.
Legislatively, the bill would protect Second Amendment rights by refusing to allow any state officers to enforce any Federal laws considered infringements on Second Amendment rights by the definitions of the bill. Those include any taxes, stamps, or fees exclusively applied to firearms, accessories, or ammunition. It applies to any registration or tracking of those items.
No person would have the authority, under the State of Missouri, to enforce those measures.
The proposed bill has teeth.
Anyone who deprives a citizen of Missouri of Second Amendment rights under color of law would be subject to lawsuit or other redresses. Sovereign, official or qualified immunity would not apply. State officers who violate the law would be ineligible for employment by the state in any law enforcement or law enforcement supervisory capacity, or by any political subdivision of the state.
This is a very tough, very comprehensive bill.
It seems to nullify several existing federal statutes, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady law. Such measures could be enforced by federal agents, but not by people employed by the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions. Very few cases could be brought by Federal Agents alone.
Both the current Governor, Mike Parson, and Lt. Governor Mike Hehoe supported the bill previously.
Exactly what will happen if the bill passes is unknown.
Videos: Watch Paul Harvey ‘predict’ in 1965 what we’re seeing today in the attacks on our Freedoms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SAjwF3F-4k
Past President's Statement on Citizen's Rights and Freedom: “… this country belongs to the people and whenever they shall grow weary of their government they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it, or revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it …” Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C.
Yours in Freedom,