PA Bill Number: SB581
Title: Providing for maximum contaminant levels.
Description: An Act amending the act of May 1, 1984 (P.L.206, No.43), known as the Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act, providing for maximum contaminant levels.
Last Action: Referred to ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
Last Action Date: Apr 22, 2019
FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday November 18th 2018 :: 11/18/2018
After the tragic mass shooting at the Squirrel Hill Tree of Life Synagogue, Pittsburgh Mayor Peduto and City Councilman Corey O’Connor have conspired to violate Pennsylvania Criminal law. Make NO mistake about it, violating Pennsylvania Preemption Law is a crime, a Misdemeanor 1. The fact that the Allegheny County District Attorney (Zappala) is ignoring this speaks to ‘his’ lack of ethics as well.
This conspiratorial act is one where Peduto and O’Connor along with the rest of City Council (purportedly) are considering passing their own gun laws in direct violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Section 6120 (Preemption). This law says, in pertinent part, the following:
§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.
(a) General rule.--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.
One would think that at least the City of Pittsburgh solicitor would advise them of the illegality of pursuing local gun laws but apparently not. Perhaps stripping the solicitor of his license to practice law would be appropriate? Further, both Peduto and O'Connor are actively soliciting other cities throughout Pennsylvania to do join together to violate the Pennsylvania Constitution as well.
And the above, ladies and gentlemen, is why states have preemption laws in the first place.
Kim Stolfer, President of Firearms Owners Against Crime, noted in numerous media appearances that Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned a local ordinance enacted in Lower Merion Township near Philadelphia that prohibited people from carrying unlicensed firearms in its parks.
Preemption laws exist to prevent municipalities from creating a byzantine patchwork of local ordinances that are virtually impossible to know unless you’re from that community, if even then. This has the effect of squashing people’s Second Amendment rights even if that’s not the purported intention of the local ordinances.
The Peduto/O’Connor effort is all about superseding the local government’s authority and create a separate set of rules for the city of Pittsburgh, rules that few will know if they venture into the city.
Should this effort NOT be legally opposed and the City of Pittsburgh stopped then every gun owner in the Commonwealth could find a bumper crop of local laws that will target everything from individual rights to FFL dealers, Gun Clubs, hunting, self-defense and more.
The City of Pittsburgh is being aided in their criminal crusade by, once again, the Bloomberg funded anti-gun group CeaseFire PA. This effort is but an extension of their past efforts throughout Pennsylvania to solicit other local communities to violate PA Preemption laws throughout the Commonwealth.
Mass Shootings and Media’s Role in Perpetuating These Tragedies
Does sensational news coverage of ‘mass shooting events’ like California, Pittsburgh, the Red Lake or Columbine shootings cause copycat Mass Shootings?
The American Psychological Association released (8/04/2016) an examination of Mass Shootings and found the concept of “Media Contagion” to be a major factor.
According to many observers, the media's attitude is "death sells... if it bleeds, it leads."
Here is what ‘real’ experts are finding:
- Most contemporary school shootings tend to occur primarily during two periods of the school year - at the beginning (late Aug through October) and near the the end of the academic year (March-April)...
- Copycats follow a regular temporal pattern that repeats - these could be after a primary media event in a day, a week, two weeks, a month, a year, ten years - vulnerable humans have internal media clocks...
- Copycats imitate the previous violent attacks, oftentimes down to specific details as that mirror the previous specifics of the shooter, the victims, and the methods -
- "Celebrity" events have a far-reaching impact and modeling effect - so, of course, Columbine serves as a dark cloud over many school shootings.
As the US Secret Service found in their study of school shootings, the vast majority, 80% of these killers, are suicidal. Frankly, I think all of them are suicidal. Homicide, as Freud said, is suicide turned outward, and that's exactly the model that is being followed. Suicide is also homicide turned inward.
Expect more mass shootings, unfortunately.
Many media personalities, such as Don Lemon, decry these rampage murder events and claim more restrictions on guns are needed. But the latest rampage murder in California took place in a polity where the restrictions were already in place. Those restrictions failed.
In contrast, armed citizens can stop rampage killings. In Tennessee, a young black father stopped a rampage shooting, using his legally carried self-defense pistol. More than two dozen rampage killings have been stopped by armed citizens.
The FBI found 8% of active shooter attacks during 2014-17 were stopped or mitigated by concealed handgun permit holders. John Lott reports the FBI only recorded half of the cases where armed citizens stopped mass killers during that period.
The number of people with carry permits is increasing. In 2017, 7.14% of adults had carry permits.
Don Lemon, of CNN, is part of the problem. By aggrandizing rampage killings, he is, in effect, promoting more of them. He could reduce rampage killings by calling for restraint on the part of the media.
The media benefits from rampage killings. They obtain ratings and money for aggrandizing rampage killing and rampage killers. They satisfy their political desires by calling for more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, even though the evidence shows those restrictions are not effective in stopping rampage killers.
Will Don Lemon and other media outlets work to reduce rampage killers by toning down the rhetoric? It seems unlikely. Reducing the killing is not to their financial advantage.
Ever wonder why Senator Casey, Senator Toomey OR the media have NEVER mentioned these the FBI conclusions? YET these same politicians focus on more gun control, more restrictions that violate OUR rights to placate their own particular agendas!!!
This ONLY works if you let them folks, ONLY if YOU let them!
US House of Representatives Gun Control Agenda for Democrats
Anti-gun Democrats are now back in full control of the US House of Representatives come January. It is time to prepare for the coming onslaught on the Second Amendment. We are already seeing the warning signs of what will come for the next two years.
First, all Democrat leadership positions are filled by long-time anti-gun zealots, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Key committees will be chaired by extremists with long histories of supporting any and all legislation designed to further restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
In other words, if you can imagine a new, draconian restriction on guns, gun owners, firearm parts and accessories, or ammunition, expect it to not only be introduced, but to be given a hearing and promoted by anti-gun media lackeys.
At the top of the list, of course, will be banning semi-automatic firearms. Extremists will try to ban America's most popular rifle, the AR15, as well as any other semi-automatic rifle. The standard magazines that come with these rifles, as well as any that are sold separately that are deemed "too big," will also be the target of bans. Most semi-automatic handguns and shotguns will also be swept into these bans.
"Universal" background checks are also a priority for anti-gun Democrats. In fact, Nancy Pelosi even promised to support criminalizing the private transfer of firearms if Democrats were given control of the House. Pelosi and her ilk will try to exploit all of the recent tragic shootings that have taken place in order to promote "universal" background check while ignoring the fact that all of the perpetrators have already gone through the background check process. The firearms in all of these horrific crimes were acquired through either the federally-mandated background check, or even more restrictive state systems, such as California’s.
Democrats who have been chomping at the bit for years to push their anti-gun agenda in the House have made it very clear YOUR RIGHTS are fair game, and they have said they will not waste any time once they seize the reins of control.
Along with semi-auto bans and "universal" background checks, expect to see attempts to tax firearms and ammunition out of the grasp of the average American. Through incompetence or malice, these legislative proposals will be so poorly drafted that it will be impossible for law-abiding gun owners to even attempt to comply with their incomprehensible provisions.
As an example, one need only look to the most recent gun control bill introduced in Congress. H.R. 7115, the so-called “3–D Firearms Prohibitions Act.” Pay particular attention to the bad drafting starting with the title: we live in a three-dimensional world; so all firearms are necessarily “3-D.” Despite the title, the bill doesn’t seem to ban all firearms, however, it’s provisions are so poorly drafted and show such an incredible lack of understanding of firearms that it likely does ban nearly any part intended for use in a modern semi-automatic firearm. Even simple pins and springs seem to fall within the provisions of the bill.
While 7115 is unlikely to move in the current Congress, it will likely be on the agenda next year. But that's just the start.
Most current gun control bills work at making gun ownership difficult. The idea is to slowly reduce the number of gun owners, to make them politically impotent.
That worked in England, where gun ownership was traditionally a small percentage of the people. It was tried in Australia but isn't working. Gun ownership has risen, in spite of the extreme restrictions. Brazilian voters rejected the concept in the last election.
It is not working in the United States.
People who want a disarmed population do not need logic or facts on their side. They have the media on their side. They only need to appear to have public support. In states with low populations of gun owners, that may be enough.
In the United States, the Second Amendment is intended to prevent the government from compiling lists of gun owners. New Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh wrote that gun registration is not allowed under the Second Amendment.
Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.
Other justices disagree.
Requiring a serial number on a gun made by an individual has virtually no function except to register that gun to that individual for potential government action, as history in New York and California has shown.
Ultimately, the Second Amendment will likely be under a more severe attack over the next two years than perhaps it has ever seen. With some sources showing that as many as one in five likely voters in Democrat primaries would like to see the Second Amendment repealed, it’s likely that some, if not many, members of Congress will attempt to oblige.
Anti-Gun California Rep. Eric Swalwell Threatens to 'Nuke' Stubborn Gun Owners Who Resist Gun Confiscation
In what might legitimately be the greatest ‘foot in mouth moment’ in the history of gun control arguments, the dumbest tweet of the day (Nov. 16) was sent by Democrat presidential hopeful, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
After freedom loving Americans criticized Swalwell for calling for the forcible confiscation of assault weapons, Swalwell responded by upping the ante.
Conservative commentator Joe Biggs charged Swalwell with wanting a war. Swalwell enthusiastically agreed in the most insane way possible.
Yes, Swalwell seriously proposed nuking his own constituents to take away their right to defend themselves from the government. As a basic reminder, the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to defend themselves from the government going rogue and becoming a tyranny. Self-defense and hunting are good but fundamentally auxiliary arguments against gun control.
Swalwell doubled down. When Biggs challenged the idea of the government nuking its own country to take back guns, Swalwell responded:
But, did Swalwell not just threaten to nuke the country not minutes before?
He then lamented the "0 progress" made on the gun debate and said he was only going to nuke people sarcastically. Funny, he never mentioned this until AFTER the election!
Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration
When former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly launched the anti-gun group Americans for Responsible Solutions (now named Giffords) in early 2013, gun owners were assured that the group sought moderate “common-sense solutions” to gun violence. The group criticized the NRA for not working to “to find the balance between our rights” and gun regulation. Giffords and Kelly explained, “we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.”
This, of course, was all a ‘deceptive’ marketing ploy. From its inception, Giffords has pushed the same warmed-over gun control policies as their more direct anti-gun peers.
To help their anti-gun allies better deceive the public, in 2016 Giffords put out a gun control messaging manual titled, “A Guide to Understanding and Engaging Americans on the Need for Stronger Gun Laws.” In a section labelled, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Talking About Gun Violence,” the guide made clear to gun control supporters that “Talk about creating a national gun registry, or banning or confiscating guns” was a definite “Don’t.” The group went on to falsely state (LIE) that none of those measures “are policy priorities or have widespread support among gun violence prevention organizations.”
Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.
In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”
Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state, “To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don’t mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.
Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.
In order to acquire a machinegun, the transferee and transferor must submit a Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm to the ATF. The form requires identifying information about the firearm and personal information about the applicant. The transferee must submit an identifying photograph along with two completed FBI Forms FD-258 fingerprint cards. This information is compiled in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, colloquially known as the NFA registry. The transferee must also pay a $200 tax.
The NFA procedure is also a prohibitive waiting period. The latest ATF data measured the wait time for completion of a Form 4 at seven months, or over 200 days. At certain points in 2016, waits stretched to about a year.
Chipman’s policy of treating AR-15s “just like machineguns” would also mean a ban on the civilian possession of newly-manufactured AR-15 rifles. In 1986, anti-gun members of Congress were successful in getting one piece of gun control into the vital Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. A late, and controversial, amendment from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) placed a ban on the transfer and possession of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Treating AR-15s like machineguns would mean a permanent freeze on the total stock of AR-15s Americans could lawfully possess.
Moreover, there is no evidence that further restricting commonly-owned semi-automatics would reduce violent crime. A pair of Department of Justice-funded studies of the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban could not determine that the ban reduced violent crime. The later of the two studies, from 2004, stated, “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” In explaining why, the researchers wrote, “estimates consistently show that AWs [commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms] are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” More recent research from the RAND Corporation determined, “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive.”
History also shows that otherwise law-abiding gun owners are unlikely to comply with gun registration requirements. In the year and a half following implementation of the N.Y. SAFE Act in early 2014, 23,847 people registered 44,485 guns. Estimates of the number of firearms in the state subject to registration were 1-1.2 million. Gun control advocates didn’t have any better luck that year in Connecticut. Despite estimates that Nutmeg State residents owned several hundred thousand firearms and 2.4 million magazines subject to new registration requirements, owners registered a mere 50,016 firearms and 38,290 magazines.
Anti-gun advocates are well aware that the American people, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly rejected the draconian gun control measures they desperately want. Faced with this reality, gun control advocates have continually dressed up their fanatical goals in all manner of disguise. Constantly masquerading as moderate, for gun control supporters every day is like Halloween. As for anyone who falls for their ruse, it’s all tricks and no treats.
"Unarmed" Police, What a Shame
Commenting about the Thousand Oaks Bar nightclub shooting in CA, Sheriff Geoff Dean of Ventura County CA stated during a press conference that there was six LEOs present (that he knows of) among the guests attending the club at the moment the perpetrator starting shooting.
A reporter asked the Sheriff if any of the six officers present at the scene were able to engage the suspect with precision gunfire.
The Sheriff sheepishly answered: “None of them were armed!”
At least six unarmed police present when a madman starts shooting, and not a single one able to call upon his training and instantly stop the carnage!
The words “unarmed” and “police” should never be found in the same sentence. This situation is a sad testimony to CA law enforcement.
Police officers should be carrying concealed guns no matter where we are, day and night, every waking minute.
The world of 2018 is no place for laws that disarm those who are paid to be prepared.
Tragic Shooting Death of Courageous Chicago Security Guard
Last weekend when Chicago-area security guard Jemel Roberson was shot and killed by police after he’d stopped a potential mass shooting there’s been little media coverage of this case, which is odd.
After all, Roberson was a black man killed by police. Recent history shows us that the media should be all over this one.
However, Roberson was also a good guy with a gun who stopped a mass shooting, which goes against the media narrative.
Tragically, despite his quick actions, he was shot and killed by law enforcement.
If you’re unfamiliar with what happened, here’s a recap.
Local news source WGN9 reports that the incident occurred around 4 a.m. Apparently, the trouble started when security asked a group of drunk men to leave. According to witnesses, someone then came back into the bar and started shooting, and security began shooting back. Roberson was able to detain one of the men outside.
“He had somebody on the ground with his knee in back, with his gun in his back, like, ‘Don’t move,’” a witness, Adam Harris, told WGN9.
Then, when police arrived to respond to the shooting, they reportedly shot the wrong man: Jemel Roberson.
“Everybody was screaming out, ‘Security!’ He was a security guard,” Harris said. “And they still did their job, and saw a black man with a gun, and basically killed him.”
The handful of comments I’ve seen by anti-gunners were smug. They were smarting off with, “See? That’s what will happen if more people have guns at things like these.”
To be fair, it’s kind of hard to argue against it at a time like this. After all, the good guy with a gun is the only one who was killed during this entire event.
But there’s also a flip side that the anti-gunners either can’t or won’t think about. Just how many people could have died if Roberson hadn’t been armed and there? How many people would these people have killed, either intentionally or indiscriminately, if Roberson and the rest of the security detail hadn’t been carrying firearms?
Roberson’s death is tragic, but his actions leading up to that death make one thing clear.
No matter what the anti-gunners say, no matter what they claim, a good guy with a gun in the right place, at the right time, and with the will to act can make a huge difference and save lives.
But what can be dismissed is anyone stupid enough to claim this event is evidence that citizens with guns are a bad idea.
Washington State Police Chief Rejects Gun Control and Proposes 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City law
The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation have sued to block I-1639, the sweeping gun control initiative just passed by voters that, among other things, raises the age to buy semi-automatic rifles to 21. A police chief in a small Eastern Washington town has declared that he would not enforce the new gun control law and is advocating the establishment of a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.”
Washington State Initiative 1639 won nearly 60 percent of the vote, but most of that came from counties west of the Cascades. It was overwhelmingly rejected by all but two eastern Washington counties, including Ferry County, where the police chief of the small town of Republic — population about 1,100 — never expected the initiative to pass.
“I couldn’t see the Washington state voters if they would have read this initiative, which I doubt most of them did, I couldn’t see most of the voters in Washington state voting this in,” said Republic Police Chief Loren Culp.
He was appalled when he realized it had passed.
“It is an initiative that totally tramples on the rights of citizens. Mostly in the 18 to 21-year-old range, but it also requires people to submit to invasion of their privacy through their medical records. It’s totally against my oath of office which is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Washington state and I will not enforce it,” Culp explained.
2nd Amendment Sanctuary City
Not only did the Chief decide he and his officer’s would not enforce the strict new gun laws, he took the issue to the city council last week in the form of a resolution, he later posted on Facebook proposing the jurisdiction become a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.”
“That says that the City of Republic will not enforce any of the rules or regulations that violate citizens rights to include the Second Amendment and the Article 1 Section 24 of the state Constitution which states that ‘the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired’ and this definitely impairs the constitutional rights of citizens,” Culp said.
From his perspective as a cop, he is simply doing his duty and there is no alternative.
“I couldn’t enforce this anymore than I could enforce a law being passed that says citizens don’t have the right to peacefully assemble or speak their mind or attend a church of their choice. It’s a constitutional right just like those are, and I can’t imagine any law enforcement officer going against oath of office to enforce any of the other constitutional amendments and I can’t see anyone in their right minds that would enforce this either,” Culp said.
Beyond the constitutional issues he says there are other concerns with the new rules, including criminalizing safe storage, defining every semi-automatic rifle as an assault weapon and more.
In addition to asking his District 7 state legislators to introduce similar legislation in the upcoming session, Culp’s 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City resolution also calls on other local jurisdictions to join Republic’s effort by passing their own sanctuary legislation. And he says they’re already hearing from interested communities.
The small town is also getting national attention after Ted Nugent — a passionate defender of the Second Amendment — shared Chief Culp’s post on Thursday and again today praising Chief Culp as an “American freedom warrior.”
The chief has strong support from Republic’s mayor and others in the city so he is hopeful the council will have his back and approve the resolution. The council is set to take the issue up at a Monday meeting, but it is not clear if they will be ready for a vote. They are looking to possible consequences of such an action, something Chief Culp was not concerned with.
“There is no legal basis for any lawsuit against me for not enforcing this. The legal basis is Article 1 Section 24 of the state Constitution and if they want to use that as toilet paper then I guess they can do whatever they want,” Culp said.
The state Attorney General’s office would only say that it will review the ordinance should it pass.
Important Quotes: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy (Senator) Statement: Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960)
Yours in Freedom!
Kim Stolfer, President