proposed laws

PA Bill Number: SB897

Title: In sentencing, further providing for sentences for certain drug offenses committed with firearms.

Description: In sentencing, further providing for sentences for certain drug offenses committed with firearms. ...

Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY

Last Action Date: Oct 15, 2019

more >>

upcoming events

Concealed Carry Permit After Hours Hosted by PA State Rep Ryan Warner - 10/24/2019
Connellsville City Hall 110 N. Arch St., Connellsville, PA


Turn It Red Rally - 10/24/2019
19 N (Event Center) 19 N Main Street, Washington, PA


Concealed Carry Seminar Hosted by PA State Rep Bud Cook - 10/24/2019
California Hill Gun Club 150 California Dr, California, PA

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday March 31st 2019 :: 03/31/2019

Well, it’s now official. They’ve gone and done it. Pittsburgh City Council, by a 6-3 vote, has gone and passed a gun control bill despite, or in spite of, the Pennsylvania Preemption law (18 P.S. 6120) on the books.

Pittsburgh City Council on Wednesday (3/27) tentatively approved three gun-control bills that would ban the USE of ‘so-called’ assault-style weapons and accessories in public places in the wake of October’s Tree of Life massacre in Squirrel Hill. These bills also included the much despised ‘Extreme Risk Protection Order’ concept which also would allow the courts to remove firearms from those who pose an “extreme risk” to themselves or others without ‘due process’.

Anti-Gun Council President Bruce Kraus called the vote a matter of “moral courage.”

What was not discussed is how Council supporters, including Kraus, will deal with the civil disobedience when people completely ignore the new laws as a matter of “moral courage.” Think he’ll be understanding?

To put it bluntly, if Council can ignore the law and claim “moral courage,” then so can Pittsburgh gun owners who refuse to comply with this criminal act.

Frankly, I don’t think anyone is surprised it passed. It shouldn’t have, but it was going to. Council members Anthony Coghill, Darlene Harris and Theresa Kail-Smith voted “no,” correctly expressing concerns about the state preemption law prohibiting municipalities from regulating firearms at the local level.

“This is something that the state should be voting on, not council,” Ms. Harris said after the meeting. “If we do a resolution and ask the state to do this, that’s different.”

It’s time for supporters of gun control on council to face the fact that bad people are still going to do bad things. None of this will change any of that.

What will happen is people will use the new Extreme Risk Protection Order law to punish others for specious and, possibly, vindictive reasons with little or no accountability. It’s nothing more than legalized “swatting.” People will get hurt. They’ll be treated like dangerous criminals. The result? None of it will stop the next massacre.

Let’s look at the Tree of Life killer, he was a racist psychopath, but would anyone in his circle of relationships have notified the authorities? How many red flags make sense in hindsight but not at the time?

Not that it matters to the six anti-gun members of Pittsburgh’s City Council. For them, the Tree of Life shooting was just a pretext. They can claim it’s about that all they want, but for most of them? It’s nothing of the sort.

This is a NATIONWIDE EFFORT by well-funded anti-gun groups through socialist billionaires who couldn’t care less about Constitutional Rights.  We're seeing this play out in a number of states where foes of the 2nd Amendment are using lawsuits, insurance regulations, and banking and financial policies to stifle gun rights without having to work through the legislative process.

Take for example, the recently-announced lawsuit by the City of Columbus as just one example of what’s happening in other states. They are trying to do what Pittsburgh is doing and overturn a section of Ohio law commonly known as "preemption," which prohibits cities from regulating firearms, their components, and their ammunition.

The goal of all this? To erase ALL the legislative progress for gun owners in recent years and, under the concept of "home rule," open the door for thousands of cities, boroughs, and townships in Pennsylvania and other states to pass any firearms laws they choose, including outright bans.

This could be the new form of gun control battle in the years to come, taking place not in Statehouses, but in courtrooms. And with the deep pockets of government, filled with your tax dollars, outspend gun owners and gun rights organizations.

It should go without saying that FOAC needs support now more than ever, as we march into this new front to fight for gun rights.

US Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Extreme Risk Protection Order Legislation – S.7 (Rubio)

Possibly the most disappointing thing this past week was the US Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on ERPO/Red Flag laws.

All the witnesses before the committee were in favor of these types of laws. Only one witness had concerns about due process, but even that witness, David Kopel, thought that beyond that concern such laws were quite desirable.

We strongly disagree.

Besides recent CPRC research by Dr. Lott on these laws, we have tried over and over again to explain how these laws create problems. These laws are reminiscent of the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, though the police there at least had psychics to help them predict future crimes. 

Some organizations have taken a public position supporting Red Flag laws. This happened last year. It was stated that these organizations did want certain key things in those laws:

  • 1) A strong due process requirement and
  • 2) A requirement that the subject of the Red Flag law get treatment and they should have added #3.
  • 3) That anyone lying to get someone “Red Flagged” would suffer **severe** legal consequences.

Here's the HUGE gaping problem and why we need to get all gun owners and organizations to walk away from ERPO/Red Flag laws: NONE of the ERPO/Red Flag bills in Congress, or anywhere else, have any of those protections! These laws focus on an inanimate object (firearms) and NOT the individual who may be the real danger to himself and/or others.

And how, precisely, would due process be done BEFORE the guns are confiscated? Why just guns? What about all the other weapons that a person has access to – from poisons to kitchen knives to automobiles?

Since this concept is unconstitutional at its’ core and none of the bills have even ‘basic’ protections for the accused, this makes these bills nothing more than gun confiscation disguised as “public safety,” there is NO REASON for ANY American to remain silent.

Is our Right to Argue ‘AGAINST’ the Deprivation of 2nd Amendment Rights Being Taken Away

In many ways, 2nd Amendment supporters have winning arguments and facts. In fact, these days, the biggest fight may be to preserve our ability to make those arguments and present those facts. This fight may be the biggest one of all.

The winning arguments have always been there for 2nd Amendment supporters, and the landmark Heller and McDonald cases have shifted the terrain. But with these victories have come adjustments from anti-gun extremists over the last few years.

Unable to refute our arguments in support of the 2nd Amendment, anti-gun extremists have taken to trying to suppress the ability of 2nd Amendment supporters to make their case to the American people in earnest.

Lately, though, it has taken on a new intensity. Part of this has been the shift we have seen since the Heller and McDonald rulings. What gave it the impetus was the tragic mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Realizing that the admissions of Barney Frank and Dick Gephardt in 1999, after they lost the debate to destroy gun shows, had made 2nd Amendment supporters seem human to supporters of gun control, not to mention those on the fence, they switched to a smear campaign strategy.

We’ve seen it take place over the years… spurring an effort to stigmatize support for the Second Amendment, and effort to get companies to force FFLs and firearms manufacturers into complying with the wish lists of anti-gun extremists, along with more pushes for legislative measures, like HR 1, intended to make the stigmatization easier, and the National Popular Vote Compact.

When the facts are out and people can consider them rationally, Second Amendment supporters can win the debate quite easily. For instance, one look at Justice Department stats blows the arguments for banning modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms out of the water. Few Americans realize that rifles of all types were used to kill about a fourth as many people as knives – and if that were to become common knowledge, the push by Feinstein to replicate what was done in New Zealand would be the laughingstock it should be.

So, what do we get? Well, Hollywood stars and other cultural influencers have turned up their efforts. Just to give you a sense of that pull, Ellen Pompeo, star of Grey’s Anatomy on ABC, has about twice as many followers on Twitter as the NRA. She’s just one anti-Second Amendment actress among many. That star power is pushed behind the narrative that support for the Second Amendment is complicity in mass killings.

That jumbo-sized lie has been a lot more effective, especially after the Parkland shooting. Now, it is not unusual to see boycotts leveled at media figures who are supportive of the Second Amendment. Protestors show up at homes. Speaking out in support of the Second Amendment can even cost some professional opportunities Silicon Valley is silencing pro-Second Amendment voices.

Media Bias Against Gun Ownership Getting Worse

The television show bias against guns has shifted into high gear over the last couple of weeks. NBC, CBS, and ABC have all had some real winners (if you want to call them that) when it comes to media bias.

If you only watch one clip of this bias, watch the one Dr. Lott has put together from NBC's Chicago Med. A long-running theme of the show has been that a romance between two characters has been troubled because the woman doctor has insisted that the male doctor get rid of his gun because it is so dangerous. Well, if only he had followed her advice. The doctor's gun is stolen and used in a crime where a young man is severely wounded.

Here’s another: In Episode 15 of Season 6 (March 22, 2018), Chicago Fire shows scenes where a man’s ammunition is set off by a fire.  Bullets shoot everywhere, seriously wounding both the man’s mother and a fireman.

More examples of bias can be seen here: https://crimeresearch.org/tag/television-show-media-bias-on-guns/

Anti-Gun New Jersey AG Sues California Gun Parts Dealer, Patriot Armory, for Legal Sales of Gun Parts

New Jersey has a reputation as one of the states most hostile to the Second Amendment. The reputation was upheld on Friday, 22 March 2019, when anti-Second Amendment Attorney General Gurbir Grewal (a praticing American Sikh) announced a lawsuit against a gun parts dealer based in California, U.S. Patriot Armory.  The parts dealer sold a kit to manufacture a gun at home to a New Jersey undercover investigator.  From nj.com:

State authorities say they’ve filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against a gun retailer accused of selling a kit to assemble an AR-15 rifle to an undercover investigator in New Jersey months after the Garden State banned “ghost guns.”

U.S. Patriot Armory does not seem to have violated any law. It has always been legal to sell gun parts in the United States and to ship them through the mail. It has always been legal to manufacture your own gun in the United States. In the famous Heller decision, Justice Scalia mentioned that it might be Constitutional to regulate commercial sales of guns. Implied is that it would not be Constitutional to regulate private sales or the manufacture of guns by individuals for their own use.  From District of Columbia v. Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Since Heller, we have found the above compromise language was inserted into the decision at the insistence of Justice Kennedy, as reported by former Justice Stevens:

The effort failed. But Justice Stevens wrote that he helped persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority, to ask for “some important changes” to Justice Scalia’s opinion. A passage in the opinion, which Justice Scalia had plainly added to secure a fifth vote, said the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many kinds of gun control laws.

In this case, the State is attempting to have their cake and eat it as well. They claim the kits are essentially guns, and they can argue they are not violating Second Amendment rights because they are not stopping the sale or transfer of guns.  Crucial to the case is the definition of “what is a gun”, or more precisely, what is a legal firearm?

New Jersey is one of only six states that does not have a clause in the state Constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms in some way.

The State of New Jersey has deep pockets. The lawsuit was filed in a New Jersey Superior Court. This is extending a trend where governments use the civil court system to create prohibitions they desire against actions that are not against the law. It is a dangerous precedent.

Many countries around the world prohibit their subjects from generally being armed. As part of those prohibitions, the subjects are prohibited from manufacturing their own firearms and are prohibited from buying gun parts.  The definition of what is a firearm is often carried to extremes. In one Australian state, the instructions on how to make a gun are considered the same as the gun itself. In another, plastic replicas that look like a gun are considered the same as a real gun.

The United States is indeed different than the rest of the world. Prior restraint of publication is generally prohibited under the First Amendment. Both First and Second Amendments are under assault by those who wish a disarmed population.

Semi-Auto Firearms and the "Civil Society" Argument-Countering the Lies and Propaganda

One of the more dimwitted and annoying arguments being used against modern multi-purpose semi-automatic rifles (and shotguns, for that matter) is that they have no place in “civil society.” It’s a far cry from their earlier justifications for the arbitrary bans on these semi-automatic firearms.

One big reason is that they have found that facts about crime didn’t help their flimsy case for these bans. One look at Justice Department crime stats shows why. Over the last five years, rifles and shotguns of all types were used for fewer murders than hands, fists, and feet (what the Justice Department calls “personal weapons”). In short, if you’re looking for murder weapons, rifles and shotguns ain’t it.

IF we had a media that held people accountable for misleading the American public, it would be hard for Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein and Bernie Sanders to get away with calling for America to follow New Zealand’s lead on banning firearms. Sadly, we do not. Instead, we are faced with a new angle that is being used to attack our rights.

Instead, they are now taking this claim that, in the words of Kamala Harris, “there is no reason in a civil society” for people to have modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms.

Of course, Harris also tossed out the canard that all modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms are good for is “killing babies and police officers.” She even wanted to use autopsy photos of the Sandy Hook victims to shame elected officials into voting for a ban.

Now her play is pretty clear. She is peddling a whopper so big that Burger King would need a bigger drive-thru window to be able to hand it to anyone who bought it, and she is manipulating people into a massive emotional reaction to do it. On top of that, she is also seeking to make the case that those who do not agree with her are the future perpetrators of mass shootings in schools, movie theaters, or other venues.

As was the case with Chris Murphy’s tweet, it’s a slander. The conduct of the millions of Americans who own AR-15 and use them for hunting, competitions, informal target shooting, or even self-defense, when combined with the statistics from the Justice Department, prove this case beyond any reasonable doubt.

We just have two problems:

  • The first problem is that we are not dealing with reasonable people. Kamala Harris has made that clear. So have Murphy, Schumer, Feinstein, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders. Why? Because they are making outlandish and unconstitutional demands. They are rejecting the nature of a Republic by seeking to punish millions of citizens who have never committed a crime let alone shot up a school, movie theater, country music concert, or any other venue. None.
  • The second problem is that Harris is using an effective one-two combination of emotional manipulation and human shields. Since the facts about modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms are not on her side, she is using the blood and victims of Sandy Hook (and other shootings) as pawns.

In essence, we’re to ignore what the facts are, and instead let them lead us down a leftist Utopian, emotion-driven path that deprives all of us of our rights.

This is a situation we ‘all’ must take head-on.

Quote Of The Week

“Hands up, don’t shoot. Trump’s a Russian spy. Kavanaugh ran a secret gang rape cartel. Covington kids assaulted a vet. Never forget that these lies — and yes, they were outright lies — were deliberately peddled by all the same people for all the same reasons.” —Sean Davis (Patriot Post)

Neighborhood Mob Forces Two Chicago Police to Release Drug Dealer

As the Chicago Tribune reported, on March 20th, two tactical police officers from the Chicago PD were in the process of arresting a suspected drug dealer on the city’s west side. After securing the suspect and confiscating a bundle of drugs as evidence, placing them in the patrol car, the officers were surrounded by a group of men who began to threaten them. At least one of the men claimed to be armed and demanded the suspect be released or he would shoot the cops. Someone in the mob stole the drugs from the patrol car and fled, with one officer giving pursuit. The threatened violence surrounding the patrol car escalated and the cops wound up releasing the suspect and leaving the scene.

YES, you read that correctly. A gang of young, potentially armed men forced two Chicago tactical police in the middle of an arrest to back down and release the suspected gang member. Chicago columnist John Kass is bringing national attention to the event and explaining why this is so much more than just a “local news story.”

One of the oldest assumptions in our system of American law enforcement is currently being tested. It’s long been understood that the police can only maintain order as long as the vast majority of people are on their side, cooperating with the police and recognizing their authority. Civilians massively outnumber the police at every level and the cops could easily be defeated by an entire community if push came to shove.

In Chicago, the gangs are apparently no longer afraid of the police. And how much support can the cops expect from the public when their own city leaders don’t support them? Chicago could have a LOT more trouble coming its way.

Rioting Venezuela Style; Is this a Forecast for American Cities?

Last Friday in the City of Maracaibo, Venezuela, during a nationwide, mandatory power-outage, rioting broke out!

The “permanent underclass,” so carefully created and expanded by Maduro’s socialist government (much as Democrats do in this country), predictably spiraled out of control. In Venezuela, government-ordered power-cuts are nothing new, but this one was nationwide and lasted nearly a week, longer in many places.

On day-five, scattered rioting broke-out, and it quickly descended into a generalized crescendo of destruction. Described as, “… an orgy of violence and wanton destruction,” thousands of semi-organized rioters looted and vandalized much of the private-sector infrastructure of the city.

Destruction and theft of private property was widespread, frenzied, and barbarous.

Supermarkets were stripped of inventory, then destroyed. Office buildings, hotels, businesses, and private residences alike were broken into and ransacked. Everything of value was stolen or ruined, including computers, furniture, televisions, appliances, fixtures, plumbing, cables, fittings. Even carpeting was ripped-up and carried-off.

In the city, food and clean water are currently very scarce.

All this is taking place in an oil-rich nation that once prospered, until socialists took over, and did what socialists always do!

What happened is not just “vandalism.” It’s terrorism, encouraged and facilitated by leftist politicians.

Friday’s destructive rioting in Maracaibo, like brutal and currently out-of-control Islamic “rape-gangs” in the UK, is going largely unreported in the liberal Western media because less-than-honest liberals are desperately trying to pretend it is not happening.

The creation and expansion of a permanent underclass lies at the heart of the Sanders and Cortez socialist mantra.

Far from helping the poor, leftists strive to keep them poor, perpetually unproductive, growing, and constantly stirred-up, so they can be used to “punish” sectors of society that refuse to support the leftist agenda.

What we currently see happening in Maracaibo could easily break-out in any number of rotting American cities AND it won’t be an “accident!”  Oh, and let's not forget that Venezuela CONFISCATED ALL FIREARMS - sound familiar?

Videos:

Founding Father's Statement on Freedom: "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value." - Thomas Paine, 1776

Yours in Freedom,

Kim Stolfer