PA Bill Number: HB2744
Title: In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons; in assault, further ...
Description: In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons; in assault, furth ...
Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY
Last Action Date: Oct 18, 2018
1st Annual Trigger Pressers Union Instructor Conference - 12/23/2018
INPAX Range and Training Academy 900 Providence Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA
FOAC Monthly Meeting - 01/13/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA
FOAC Monthly Meeting - 02/10/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA
FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday November 25th 2018 :: 11/25/2018
FAKE News! What is ‘Fake News’? Why is the media so fixated on President Trump calling the Main Stream Media the enemy of the people?
Let’s take a look at what just ‘one’ gun owner experienced in trying to 'deal with' the media to combat lies about gun ownership through his letter to the editor to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. This is a Tale of Media Repression and Censorship Over the 2nd Amendment and one gun owners determination to stand up to the abuse and prejudice! It’s important to remember that this is but one of tens of thousands, if not millions, of examples of how the biased media has forged ahead in silencing gun owners to advance their gun control agenda.
For the last 50 years gunowners have experienced a massive level of censorship and altered reality when it comes to exercising our First Amendment rights to openly and publicly protect and advocate for the Second Amendment.
While the media condones ignorant and disrespectful behavior on the part of reporters, behind-the-scenes they have, for decades, suppressed and openly denigrated Second Amendment supporters. This suppression comes in many forms such as what you’ll see below as well as forcing requirements of proof for opinions, excessive and unwarranted editing to water down a powerful position piece or even outright rejection!
When the media wonders why the public has such a low opinion of the MSM, the situation experienced by Jim Abraham below is but one speck of a much larger universe of ignorant and arrogant behavior in media advocacy for untenable and factually unsupported positions on constitutional freedoms!
There is an old saying that along with rights come responsibilities and this applies to the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment! It is long past due for the advocates of the First Amendment to realize that all Americans share in this right is well, and not just those who buy ink by the barrel. They should be as supportive of a citizen’s First Amendment right as they are of their own!
See Jim’s ordeal below beginning with the link to Jim’s letter that the PG published after editing. Jim’s original letter is near the bottom of this message along with his letter to PG’s John Block:
PS don’t forget to read Jim’s letter to the owner (John Block) of the Pittsburgh post-Gazette at the very bottom complaining of the treatment he experienced.
Jim Abraham’s story of Post-Gazette Censorship of Second Amendment beliefs begins below!
On November 1st, I submitted a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette addressing the lack of firearms knowledge and understanding displayed by most anti gun-rights people in general and in particular those who had submitted (and had published) letters to the PG. The PG failed to publish this letter for two weeks all the while continuing to publish anti gun-rights letters – sometimes several each day. They finally published the letter after I pressed them on three separate occasion to do so.
Please note two points: 1) The bulk of this letter was written on November 1st, before the shooting in Thousand Oaks and before Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and city council announced that they would pursue local gun control legislation specific to the City of Pittsburgh. Both of these items are addressed in my revised letter published November 13th. 2) More curiously, aside from some expected editing, note that the PG deleted the last two lines of my letter regarding a gun rights organization for Jewish people before publishing it. In doing so, they manufactured an ominous end to my letter where none was intended. I originally thought this was for space and length. Admittedly, it’s a long letter. These last two lines were important though, so I added them into the comment section of the online version of the PG… twice. They deleted THAT along with anyone else’s comments quoting those last two lines. I now realize that these lines weren’t just cut for space; they were deliberately suppressed. Why?
Sent: 2018-11-05 12:17:43 PM
Subject: 2nd submission
The PG has run multiple letters from only one side of this debate. How about giving voice to an opposing view? I am resubmitting the below letter for your consideration.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:24 AM JIM wrote:
How one-sided are you willing to make this debate by suppressing opposing views? My letter cannot possibly be the only one you've received supporting gun rights. Can you deign to at least print one of them?
Sent: 2018-11-08 11:38:36 AM
Subject: Re: ??
I apologize for not responding sooner, we have been overwhelmed with letters since the Tree of Life shooting. Could you please provide your phone number so I can ask you a few questions before publishing your letter? Thank you.
---------- Original Message ----------
Subject: Re: ??
---------- Original Message ----------
Your continued refusal to give voice to only one side of the gun debate is truly shameful. This omission neglects your organization's responsibility to cover events without bias. You are clearly and deliberately failing in this regard.
I received a call that afternoon from the PG. They FINALLY agreed to publish the letter. I asked if I could revise it to include the Thousand Oaks shooting as well as Peduto and council’s plans to enact local gun control – both events that had taken place after the original letter submitted November 1st. They agreed and advised me that the letter must be no more than 350 words and could not have been submitted to any other paper or publication. That evening I submitted the below letter. Again, note those last two disappearing lines.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JIM ABRAHAM
Date: November 13, 2018 at 9:07 PM
Subject: Alyssa Brown
Please see the below letter submitted for publication in the PG. I have not submitted this letter to any other newspaper or publication - the PG only. BTW, its length comes in at 349 words on the money.
Ahhh… there they are, the predictable raft of hackneyed letters here in the PG calling for “common sense gun control,” a ban on “assault rifles/weapons,” or (at least honestly) an outright ban on all guns. These letters almost always come from those with little to no knowledge, experience, or training with respect to the firearms they’re decrying and wishing to regulate. However, the writers remain certain that guns are scary and have little place or legitimate purpose in modern society despite knowing very little about them.
Now, into this fray, and with a seemingly similar dearth of firearms knowledge and understanding, stumble Mayor Peduto and City Council. They seem intent on heeding the cries to “just do something !” by enacting local gun control measures. Of course, doing so not only runs afoul of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act state-level preemption provision which prohibits just this sort of local firearms nonsense, but also places the City of Pittsburgh in violation of a 1995 consent decree wherein the City agreed to abide by this very same state preemption provision. Think of this as a municipal “double-pinky swear” deigning to actually follow Pennsylvania state law. Peduto and Council will accomplish nothing but mire the City and its taxpayers in expensive litigation.
California has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. It also leads the nation in mass shootings, most recently in Thousand Oaks where the shooter used a handgun and not the oft-maligned AR-15. What can I say that hasn’t already been said ad nauseum to give the lie to the notion that more and greater restrictions on firearms will make the bad things stop? Quite little actually, but here’s a topical point given the religion and ethnicity of the victims in the Tree of Life massacre.
Look into the long and sordid relationship between Jewish people and gun control. Spoiler alert: It rarely ends well for the Jews. This is the chief reason for the founding of “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership” (JPFO.org). This organization knows their history and has vowed Never Again to repeat it.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JIM ABRAHAM
Date: November 16, 2018 at 12:33 PM
Subject: bias in letter to the editor
I am writing concerning a letter to the editor published in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I have provided a link below. My letter addresses both firearms regulations as well as its unique and sordid history in the Jewish community. For some reason the PG decided to cut the last two lines from my letter before publishing it. In doing so, they deleted a salient point and manufactured an ominous ending where none existed otherwise. By accepting my letter for publication, the PG should have either printed it as written or rejected it. I can understand a need to edit for length, but it seems something else was afoot here.
Very early this morning I posted a comment in the online version of the PG making clear what was omitted from the original letter and making known those last two lines. They deleted THAT comment. Those last two lines weren't just cut from my letter for space, they seem to have been suppressed. Here's how my letter, as submitted to the PG, originally ended:
“This is the chief reason for the founding of “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership” (JPFO.org). This organization knows their history and has vowed Never Again to repeat it.”
These lines were cut from the below published letter:
Finally, the bulk of this letter was written and submitted over two weeks ago. The PG continued to publish multiple letters calling for greater gun control but refused to publish mine. Only after calling them out on this bias multiple times did they agree to publish my letter. I still have these emails and can forward them along to you if you'd like.
I'd like the original letter printed as written along with an editor's note stating that it was edited and an explanation as to why.
Jim Abraham, Squirrel Hill
How Jim conducted himself is a credit to himself and should be an example for all to follow. Tenacity and unrelenting pressure is what is needed to combat the attacks we now face on our rights! KUDOS Jim!!!
Swalwell Controversy Caused By All-Around Stupidity
Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) is no friend of law-abiding gun owners. That much was pretty clear when he announced that he favored an Australia-style “buyback” of certain semi-automatic rifles. Well, on November 16, he went a bit further.
In a Tweet, he reiterated his support for an Australia-style ban he called for in a USA Today op-ed published in May. Then, when it was pointed out by a combat veteran that a confiscation law could potentially spark an armed uprising (there is historical precedent – look what happened when the British tried to confiscate guns from the colonists around Boston in 1775). The person who pointed that possibility out said, “You’re outta your [expletive] mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power,” Swalwell responded with a stunning tweet.
Representative Swalwell's plan if gun owners refuse to turn in their property, use nukes on American citizens.
“And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes,” Swalwell tweeted back. He very quickly drew tons of fire on Twitter for his comments. Even the NRA is piling on, noting, “This inflammatory and decisive rhetoric will inspire gun owners to fight harder to protect their rights.”
Before we go any further, it should go without saying that no rational or reasonable person wants to see a second civil war tear the United States apart. Such an event would be long, bitter, and catastrophic for not just the United States, but potentially the world. So, let’s dispense with the eagerness when we discuss such irresponsible fantasies.
But there are some things that do need to be taken away from this. First of all, what is most notable about Swalwell’s push for an Australia-style gun ban is the fact that there has been no pushback outside of Second Amendment supporters. Second, when he did get a lot of pushback, he started to claim he was just being sarcastic.
But don’t let the claims of sarcasm distract you from something very real: Anti-Second Amendment lawmakers and advocates are again openly calling for the confiscation of guns. I say again because Nelson “Pete” Shields famously called for a complete ban on handguns in the 1970s – even outlining his process, which included gradually adding restrictions. Then, of course, there is Dianne Feinstein’s “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in” comments on 60 Minutes.
For the record, rifles of all types, not just the modern sporting rifles, not just the AR-15, which is being turned into a “boogie rifle,” but ALL rifles are used in killings about 25 percent as often as knives, according to Justice Department data. People are also more likely to be clubbed to death or killed by someone using their bare hands than to be killed by ANY sort of rifle. That also holds true for shotguns, with an even greater disparity than rifles in 2017. The rarity of the misuse of long guns for killing isn’t just for last year, it’s been the case for years on end.
For all of Swalwell’s stupidity on this issue, though, this also was a potentially serious unforced error on the part of the person who called him out over the semi-auto ban. The facts and logic on this issue were more than enough to make Swalwell look like an idiot. Instead, he got the chance to paint Second Amendment supporters as insurrectionists. These are fights we can do without, especially when Bloomberg has the ability to drop millions in ad money.
It’s never enough to just fight hard for our rights, we must fight smart.
Promoting Murder or Working to Stop It? Is the Media Aware of Their Role??
News media is a business. It makes money by delivering our eyes to its commercial advertisements. The media will show us anything to keeps us watching. That is bad news for all of us viewers because some people want to be the news rather than watch it. Some viewers will go so far as to kill to be on the news, and the media seems fine with that. We have data that instances of mass murders have increased due to the unbelievable amount of news coverage given to the mass murderers. Is celebrity violence real, and how do we fix it?
Let’s see how this plays out one step at a time. Narcissists are mad at the world because they want more attention. They want to be famous, and some of them will do anything to get that attention. For their part, the news media delivers fame to mass murderers. This seems like a fair trade to a depressed and socially isolated narcissist. The media gets the sensational story they want from a mass murder while the murderer gets the public recognition he craves. We’re left to clean up the bloody mess of dead bodies.
Today, the media is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
The media might claim that their sensational coverage of mass murder is simply “the public’s right to be informed”. I’ll remind you that the public’s right to be informed is so the public can make good political decisions. I am all for free speech, but we have several examples where the news media deliberately restricts the information they make public and we’re better for it.
The most obvious example is that we no longer publicize the name of rape victims. There is a clear public purpose to that restraint. We want rapists prosecuted, and we found that victims were less likely to come forward and press charges if they were pushed into the public eye. Keeping the victim out of the news led to more prosecutions and fewer rapes in the future. The news media stayed in business even with fewer rapes to report.
We no longer publicize the name of young suicides. We used to do so, but then we noticed that youth-suicides would cluster after the first suicide was given widespread news coverage. Other at-risk teens would kill themselves in copycat suicides in order to get their name in the paper. Today, we don’t publish the name and face of the suicide in order to stop copycat “celebrity suicides”. The media has plenty of news to report without showing us the face and name of the dead youngster.
There were no mass murders at schools in 2017. We’ve seen several for them in 2018. The media coverage is now feeding an accelerating cycle of “celebrity violence”. Oddly enough, we knew this would happen. A report several years ago by the American Psychological Association estimated that we’ve doubled the rate of mass murders due to the extensive news coverage the media gives these celebrity violence events. The public has the right to know, but when does news coverage become a casting call for the next mass murderer?
It is easy to separate the public’s need for information from the media’s lust for advertising revenue. We already have examples of the coverage of rape and suicide where the media does not show names and faces. We seem to be able to report on those events very well given that small restriction. In the case of celebrity violence, the media should neither show the murderer’s face nor mention his name. How do we stop the media from prostituting itself for profit?
If I were an advertiser, I wouldn’t want my company promoted next to a mass murderer. Advertisers could demand that their promotions not be placed next to coverage of celebrity violence.
I’d like the government to help this movement. We could demand that the media stop all advertising within one hour of when the media shows the face or mentions the name of the murderer. That would take the profit motive out of celebrity violence. We could also call the advertiser and ask them to pull their ads if the station mentions the murderer’s name.
I hope that isn’t necessary. All it really takes is for us to change the channel or turn off the TV.
Hollywood Using ‘R’ Rating for Films as a Way to Keep Information on Guns One-Sided Especially from the Young
It takes a lot to shock today's jaded movie audiences, especially those attending a Hollywood preview. Yet, Mel Gibson's movie about America's Revolutionary War, “The Patriot,” drew loud gasps at a screening,” economist, author and Crime Prevention Research Center founder John Lott observed in The Washington Times back in 2000:
“The outrageous scene? Mr. Gibson's character handing over guns to his 10- and 13-year-old sons to help fight off British soldiers. Few critics were soothed by the screenwriter replying that the scenes accurately portrayed the complexities of war or Mr. Gibson's assurance that he would let his own children use guns in self-defense.”
Things have not gotten better, as WND.com reports. The Motion Picture Association of America has given lead actor Kevin Sorbo’s new film “The Reliant” an “R” rating, ensuring many families that don’t know any better will not let their children see the film.
The only young “survivors” gun-grabbers want those under 18 to know about are the defenseless kind. (The Reliant / Facebook photos)
The reason? Executive producer (and president of the United States Concealed Carry Association) Tim Schmidt offered his view:
“It seems the MPAA gave ‘The Reliant’ an R-rating due to their discomfort with how the movie depicts the responsible use of a firearm by a pre-teen boy. This boy saved the innocent lives of his own family members! It just doesn’t make sense to me.”
That will have a major impact on box office receipts and perceived viability of such fare to investors. And that will help to ensure that the information young people get on guns overwhelmingly comes to them from sources intent on undermining the right to keep and bear arms while simultaneously exploiting mind-numbing violence with guns for the sake of “action movie” profits.
From their point of view it makes perfect “progressive” sense. The former head of MPAA was Chris Dodd, replaced in 2017 by Charles Rivkin.
When he was a senator, Dodd was a “leader” in citizen disarmament,” who never saw a gun-grab he didn’t like. He was also a hypocrite when it came to protecting his and his patrons’ financial interests.
It was a bit of a family tradition – his father, Sen. Thomas Dodd, was a principle architect behind the Gun Control Act of 1968:
“In past years, Senator Thomas Dodd (D – Conn.), well known for his anti-gun viewpoint, has ruled subcommittee hearings with an iron hand,” a Shooters Club of America alert in the January 1968 issue of GUNS informed its readers. “He has said, ‘I would be for abolishing all guns … I never saw any sense in guns anyway, and I do not go backward by saying so. I hope some day the world will say, “Destroy them all”.’”
As for Rivkin, he’s been DNC delegate for both John Kerry and Barack Obama, and “California finance co-chair for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and one of his top fund raisers.” In return he got a couple plum ambassadorships and all kinds of connections as Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs.
True, the ratings monopolist lauds itself for “independence.” MPAA's assurances might carry more weight if we knew something about the raters, or if Jack Valenti, the guy who set up the rating system and handpicked its administrator, had not been such a hard core Democrat.
Valenti was the go-between for the Lyndon Johnson administration and Hollywood “stars” (including Charlton Heston) who came out for GCA ’68. Here’s the letter (and to my knowledge John Wayne never participated, although Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck, Hugh O'Brien and Kirk Douglas did):
The MPAA is hardly neutral on guns and your right to own them.
Feel free to buy into MPAA being an honest, unbiased broker in all this. If you don’t, the producers of The Reliant have presented their defense along with an appeal. Fighting MPAA’s rating will be expensive. If you believe the kind of message it promotes is something young people would benefit from learning, and if you want to ensure similar efforts aren’t dissuaded before they begin, visit their Indiegogo site, help as you can and spread the word. You can also connect with them on Facebook and Twitter.
Tangentially related: 50 Years of Infringements after GCA68 Show Only Constant is Obsession with Control
Legalized Marijuana, even for Medicinal Purposes, does not Change Federal Law for Gun Owners
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a person who is “addicted to or an unlawful user of” a controlled substance is considered a prohibited person for firearm regulation. The Federal Controlled Substances Act, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., regulates marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. So, if you use marijuana and possess a firearm, you open yourself up to prosecution for a 10-year felony under federal law.
Legalization of medicinal marijuana is unlikely to have an effect on LTCF’s. Possessing or using medicinal marijuana will not directly cause you to lose your LTCF. But, conviction of related offenses may.
However, a person carrying a concealed weapon while “under the influence” of alcohol or a controlled substance is subject to a range of consequences.
Legalization of marijuana will not have any significant effect on the legal landscape for firearms. Federal law still prohibits users of marijuana from possessing firearms.
Important Quote: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy, Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress. March 13, 1962
Yours in Freedom!
Kim Stolfer, President