proposed laws

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

more >>

upcoming events

Firearms Law Seminar with Joshua Prince, Eric Winter and Adam Kraut - 12/1/2018
King Shooters Supply 346 E Church Rd King of Prussia, PA


BULLETPROOF MIND - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - 12/1/2018
INPAX Academy, The Forge 900 Providence Blvd Ste 100, Pittsburgh, PA


FOAC Monthly Meeting and Holiday Party - 12/9/2018
Al's Cafe Bethel Park 440 McMurray Road Bethel Park PA

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday November 4th 2018 :: 11/04/2018

With the elections coming up on Tuesday we are in what can be called the 'calm before the storm'. We HOPE you intend to VOTE as do your friends!  Remember our Voter's Guides can be found at this link: https://foac-pac.org/Voter-Guide.  Many of us will be happy to put the election behind us while at the same time harboring a deep concern for the outcome! That nagging little voice in our heads is warning us that a 'great deal' is riding on the outcome and that is what should scare all of us!

The polarization of our country, along with the rampant lies about issues such as gun control, have led us into an uncertain future. Supporters of the Second Amendment seem to, more and more, be looking for someone else to do the work of defending the Constitution. The polarization has resulted in many conventional forms of political activism coming under attack such as the NRA legal difficulties as well as their drop in support from political circles and in the public’s eye.

One of the questions that will be debated long after this election is over is whether or not Second Amendment advocates are committed to doing what’s necessary to maintain political strength and fight the lying anti-gun groups and unscrupulous and unethical media and politicians who seek to manipulate this issue for political and personal gain?

Having seen Second Amendment advocates and activism through the lens of the last 30 years it is interesting to compare the changes from the late 1980s to today. Unquestionably, it is more difficult to convince the average second amendment supporter (gun owner) to get involved today. Many do not appreciate the battles that were fought in the 80s and the 90s using very low-tech methods and the passion of Second Amendment advocates. Back then all we had to do is point gunowners in the right direction and they took independent, individual initiative to passionately defend the right to bear arms.

Today, it seems technology has divided our community of Second Amendment supporters into thinking that pressing a button on a smart phone is enough. If anyone believes that to be the case then they are deluding themselves because politics is still a "game of boots on the ground" and to reinforce that all we have to do is look at what happened with HB 2060 this year! Anti-gun groups put dozens and dozens of paid supporters in Harrisburg while gunowners could not muster the same level of passion that they did 30 years ago and sat back waiting for someone else to do the job. We lost!  They have learned how to beat us at our own game which had been so successful for nearly 2 decades!  Further, instead of weeks or even months to plan for political activism we are now only getting days or even hours of notice as to the intent to move certain bad bills. We realize this makes it difficult for the average person to plan for time off from work and around other family activities but it is important to realize they are using our weaknesses against us!

So where do we go from here and how do we adapt and fit in to this new millennia of activism?

Interestingly, this past week on Fox the talk show host Tucker Carlson spoke about how executives at the big tech companies like Google and Yahoo and Microsoft all send their kids to private schools that do not use technology or have, as he put it, electronic screens to teach them. What we should learn from this is that these technology giants all know the dangers of how technology reshapes our viewpoint and connection to the world around us! In fact, Tucker Carlson pointed out that this technology actually changes our brains physically just like the antipsychotic drugs called SSRIs! This raises the question as to whether or not this technology is changing each of us in ways that make us less effective in the political world?

Synagogue shooting: the horror that was just one week ago in Pittsburgh with the synagogue shooting has exposed how many in government are unwilling to recognize the fact that the congregants were denied the right to self-defense by church policy! When this was addressed in the media, supporters of an American’s right to choose self-defense were derided by self-righteously indignant commentators who exposed their lack of knowledge and their bias and prejudice on this issue by trying to ridicule the possibility that this could work. All of this was done with the backdrop of the FBI report showing that in 94% of the mass shootings, where civilians involved themselves, they were stopped by the civilian effectively without collateral damage!

Since so much of the media is controlled by the same individuals who are funding the gun control movement, we need to have a serious discussion about where all of this pressure on our freedoms is leading us and where we, as individuals, go from here! I say this in the backdrop of this current election cycle where pro-gun groups have been outspent massively by anti-gun groups and want to remind you that our strength has always been the individual gun owner. If this strength is now diminishing significantly then is the Second Amendment doomed because of the apathy and unwillingness to commit one’s own time? This is a question that each of us must consider!

Despicable political attacks on FOAC: this past week as also seen an underhanded political attack on FOAC by trying to brand us as anti-Semitic because of last week’s e-newsletter. The gist of the attack was based on the fact that we spoke about the Civil War the country is going through which was clearly in reference to the transformative behavior of those on the left and attacking all of the institutions of America as well as free speech and free assembly. The attack was carried out by a former Democrat state representative, Jesse White, who FOAC had previously endorsed. We intend to deal with this, and the FOAC member who forwarded this information to Jesse White for his own personal gain, after the election!

Since our mentioning that America was going through a civil war of beliefs, it is interesting to note that the despicable and immoral commentary of Jesse White did not include any reference to the “threatening statements” by actor James Cromwell who bombastically claimed that if the election did not go well that there would be “blood in the streets if Democrats lose”!

Media confusion on a politician’s oath: in all of the media interviews we’ve done since the tragedy in Squirrel Hill it is clear that none of these reporters seem to have a clear grasp of what it means to take an oath to the Constitution.

Some in the media even seem to think that the oath is nothing more than a ceremonial function. If this is true then why even have an oath of office? If this is true then why even require military members to swear the same oath?

This is a classic case in point as to why we must hold politicians’ feet to the fire and not allow outside forces like the media and billionaires to reshape the intent of our Constitution and law. You see if we/they continue to allow elected officials to take office swearing upon an oath to defend, obey and support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth with an open intent to violate the Bill of Rights without any consequences then we are lost as a Republic!

You see the Constitution is the supreme “law” of the land! Laws are supposed to be obeyed but when you have a judiciary that waters down the actions of those elected to office by not holding them accountable and the media that will not expose this rampant corruption then precedent is set for anarchy!

Do you believe the oath of office should be obeyed? If so, then how can any introduced gun control legislation be considered to be valid and not a violation of that oath?

It’s interesting to note that when put in those terms to the media they stumble and stutter because during the conversations I will always bring up the fact that if that is the interpretation regarding Second Amendment issues than the First Amendment is next! The squirming is palpable!

FBI Acknowledges Life-Saving Potential of Armed Citizens

“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives. The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

Those are the final lines in the conclusion of the FBI’s Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Gang and drug-related shootings are excluded. “The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.”

Ten active shooters were confronted by citizens. In four incidents, the responding citizens were unarmed; these heroes include school staff, the shooter’s girlfriend, and a man who intentionally struck the shooter with his car. Six shooters were confronted by armed citizens. Four shooters were stopped by lawfully armed citizens. One citizen was wounded as he confronted the shooter. “In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting.” Unsurprisingly, it seems that these criminal cowards preferred targets incapable of defending themselves.

Anti-gun politicians, celebrities, and organizations deride the idea that citizens can successfully defend themselves, their families, or those around them. They prefer that law-abiding gun owners be disarmed – a position they advocate from behind the safety of armed security. We’re fortunate to have real leaders who understand that Americans should be trusted to take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities, and that the quickest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The FBI’s latest report affirms that ability.

James Cromwell, actor, warns of ‘revolution’: ‘There will be blood in the streets’ if Democrats lose

Actor James Cromwell told an audience Sunday night that a violent revolution is coming if Democrats don’t win the midterm elections.

“Something is coming up, which is desperately important to this country and to this planet, and that is an election, in which hopefully in some measure we are going to take back our democracy,” Mr. Cromwell, best known for his roles in “The Green Mile” and “Babe,” said in accepting a Carney Award in Santa Monica, California, Variety reported.

“We will have a government that represents us and not the donor class,” he continued. “We will cut through the corruption, [and] we won’t have to do what comes next, which is either a nonviolent revolution or a violent one, because this has got to end.”

Speaking to Variety on the red carpet before the event, Mr. Cromwell said, “There will be blood in the streets” if President Trump stays in power.

“This is nascent fascism. We always had a turnkey, totalitarian state — all we needed was an excuse, and all the institutions were in place to turn this into pure fascism,” he said. “If we don’t stop [President Trump] now, then we will have a revolution for real. Then there will be blood in the streets.”

Mr. Cromwell, 78, is a longtime liberal activist who has been arrested multiple times for protesting environmental issues.

Since this statement was released Cromwell has walked back his claims of ‘blood in the streets’, at least publicly.

Gallup Poll: Americans Oppose Gun Bans

Recently, a Gallup poll found that a majority of adults now ‘oppose’ a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and discussed how even Everytown for Gun Safety is now running campaign ads focused on anything but gun control to help push their agenda.

Gallup also released two other interesting data points from their latest survey. The first finding is that 61% of Americans “favor stricter laws on the sale of firearms.” This is a decrease from a recent high after the Parkland shooting, but we have not yet returned to the lows of the late 2000s and early 2010s.  There are marginal upticks in the percentage of Americans who feel that gun laws should be less strict or kept as they are now.

Support for stricter gun laws is strongest among Democrats (87% in favor), and three in five Independents (61%) favor stricter gun laws. A majority of Republicans believe gun laws should be kept as they are (55%).

We just don’t know which gun laws Americans believe should be made more strict. Gallup tested an assault weapons ban, as we discussed last week, and found a majority of Americans oppose a ban on assault weapons.

Gallup’s other recent release found that an even stronger majority of Americans oppose a law “that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons.” You may recall that 57% of American adults are against a ban on semi-automatic rifles, even when they are misleadingly called “assault weapons.” Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans oppose a handgun ban. Even most Democrats (55%) oppose a handgun ban – and this is the group among whom support for stricter gun sales laws is nearly universal.

There is a concerning trend for support of a handgun ban. Support increased five points between 2016 and 2017 and has held since steady at 28%. While this is a minority of the American public, writing them off would be foolish. These are the people who support radical anti-gun politicians and organizations, who conspire to advance piecemeal gun control under the guise of “doing something.”

We don’t have the data necessary to see the percentage of Americans who both support stricter gun sales laws and oppose a ban on semi-automatic rifles or handguns, but the data that is publicly available is strong – and clear. Americans clearly oppose a ban on the manufacture, sale, or possession of semi-automatic rifles and oppose a ban on handguns.

What this survey does not measure is the respondents’ familiarity with gun laws, and misleading claims about gun laws are routinely spread. The former President claimed that it’s easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a computer, a book, or a vegetable. Claims that it is harder to buy allergy medication than it is to buy a gun circulated on social media several weeks ago, propagated by an anti-gun public relations professional and echoed by the father of a Parkland, Florida, shooting victim. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and such claims may stick.

So here we are. A majority want stricter laws concerning gun sales and majorities oppose prohibitions on the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles or handguns. There is some room for interpretation of the question language, and the impact of high-profile shootings in the data is apparent even to anti-gun activists. Perhaps some of that majority simply want “to be better” in terms of crime.

2nd Amendment Review of Lying Bobby Casey and Why Pennsylvania Should Vote Him Out

When Casey started in the United States Senate after defeating the 2006 re-election bid of Rick Santorum, he postured himself as a friend to law-abiding gun owners (similar to today’s Conor Lamb running against Keith Rothfus-17th Dist.).

Casey used to support concealed carry reciprocity. He was also in opposition to the District of Columbia’s onerous gun laws. He even said he supported allowing people to have firearms for personal protection in national parks.

Sadly, though, Casey turned his back on gun owners in the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. While he claimed to respect the 2nd Amendment, he supported a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity. It is a heartbreaking and infuriating betrayal.

It also made no sense whatsoever. Even with tragedies like those at Newtown, Las Vegas, Parkland, or Pittsburgh, Justice Department statistics show that a hammer or baseball bat is more likely to be used to kill someone than a rifle of any type, much less the AR-15 that is so constantly demonized. But the facts and logic didn’t matter.

Since then, if the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein had a position, Casey has become a reliable vote for them. When it came time to oppose the UN Arms Trade Treaty, Casey voted against prohibiting American entry into that treaty. He cast his votes for the semi-auto ban and the arbitrary magazine capacity limit. He also backed “universal” background checks. Perhaps the clearest sign that he had become a stooge of Schumer and Feinstein was his reversal on concealed carry reciprocity. Casey, it should be noted, also voted for anti-2nd Amendment justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The sad fact is, Casey is not the first politician to turn his back on gun owners, and he will not be the last. All too often, some politicians will give, usually from pressure that comes from party leadership, donors, or the media. They forget that as long as they are loyal to law-abiding gun owners, law-abiding gun owners will have their backs.

There is a flip side to this as well. Those who have turned their backs on law-abiding gun owners need to be voted out, and the 2018 election is a good chance to hold Casey accountable for his decision to side with Schumer, Bloomberg, and Feinstein. They have a good candidate to replace him with in Lou Barletta.

Barletta has been a solid supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights. The passage of time has seen him remain very supportive of concealed-carry reciprocity, as well as standing up for the 2nd Amendment rights of our veterans. Barletta has also explicitly criticized Casey’s flip-flop on 2nd Amendment issues.

Casey may have dumped gun owners for Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Schumer, but he doesn’t get the last word in this matter. There are over 5,000,000 PA 2nd Amendment supporters who have a chance to resolve the bad blood with Bob Casey on November 6.

The Truth About Children and 'Gun Injuries'

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine reports that hospitals on average treat around 8,300 pre-adult gunshot victims during any given year. This number is derived from 75,086 hospital records over a nine-year period. According to researcher Dr. Faiz Gani, “In our study, we found that for every 100,000 teenagers and children arriving to the emergency department, 11 come for a gun-related injury.”

Even 11 out of 100,000 is a consequential figure. However, it’s always important to read the fine print in order to understand the core reasons and to avoid misplaced evangelizing. For example, NBC News tactically added that “the American College of Physicians released new guidelines calling for gun violence to be treated as a public health emergency, and backing legislation to help control gun deaths.”

But as USA Today notes, “The most common reasons for gun injuries included assault or being shot on purpose (49 percent), unintentional injuries (38.7 percent) and suicides (2 percent). Boys were five times more likely to end up in the ER with a gun-related injury compared to females, and those ages 15-17 were most at risk.”

Notice that not only is the highest percentage related to criminal elements, but teenagers are most at risk. That is unequivocally the direct result of gang activity, which is plaguing virtually every inner city. As for unintentional injuries, parents share much of the blame. Earlier this week, a drug-carrying 24-year-old man lodged his infant daughter atop a stolen firearm after being stopped by police. Thankfully, the child is okay, but the end result is not always positive. Carelessness, a lack of preemptive measures, and poor knowledge all contribute to unintentional injuries.

And not to downplay the situation, but it’s important to put the gunshot average among kids in perspective. In August, The New York Times reported, “Drug overdoses killed about 72,000 Americans last year, a record number that reflects a rise of around 10 percent, according to new preliminary estimates from the Centers for Disease Control. The death toll is higher than the peak yearly death totals from H.I.V., car crashes or gun deaths.” Contrast that with the 8,300 pre-adults who require doctors to attend their gunshot wounds, 6% of whom on average will succumb to their injuries.

The bottom line? Personal choices are something no policy can adequately address. Add to that a culture riddled with inner-city gang violence, and the statistics will be ‘very’ ugly for an especially vulnerable and gullible age group.

California Democrat Congressional Candidate (Katie Hall) Wants Nationwide Gun Control

Democrats have targeted select districts throughout the country. Their goal is to flip both the House and the Senate come November. One of the districts they're heavily invested in is California's 25th Congressional District, which is currently represented by Republican Steve Knight.

Knight's Democratic challenger, Katie Hill, is touting her "distinction" as a Gun Sense Candidate, a so-called honor given by gun control group Moms Demand Action. 

What's disturbing is her stance on the 2nd Amendment. Although she says she's a "lifelong gun owner," she wants "sensible" gun laws. And you know what that means: banning particular accessories and types of guns.

Here's her policy position on firearms (emphasis mine):

As a lifelong gun owner, I am ready to be a sensible voice in the debate around gun violence. I believe that respecting the Second Amendment and advocating for gun safety measures are not mutually exclusive, which is why I am proud to have the distinction as a Gun Sense Candidate from Moms Demand Action. Like we already have in California, I support a federal ban on assault weapons, high capacity magazines and bump stocks, as well as increasing waiting periods, raising the minimum age to purchase all weapons, and expanding our current background check system. These measures can have a significant impact on reducing gun violence, while also adequately retaining the right to bear arms. It’s time to move past inflammatory politics and take steps now to curb gun violence, because protecting our kids and our communities is something we can ALL agree on.

No gun owner in their right might would take a policy position like Hall has. It's typical for anti-gunners to start out their statements with "as a gun owner..." before they say they're in favor of some sort of gun control. It's their way of "easing" what they're trying to say. It's their way of saying, "prepare yourself. I'm going to say what you're doing and what you own should be banned." 

Hall wants to ban "assault weapons." We all know that is a term liberals came up with to make guns sound big, bad and scary. A simple feature, like a grip, can make the difference between a gun being legal or illegal. 

Banning "high-capacity magazines" is just dumb. You could have a 10-round magazine and you're legal. If you have 11 or more, you're suddenly breaking the law. How did liberals decide on 10 rounds, anyway? Seems like such an arbitrary number.

She wants to increase waiting periods, but haven't mass shootings proved one thing: that anyone who wants to commit carnage is going to do so. Most of these people who carry out these heinous acts have patience. They plan everything down to the last detail. A few more days won't stop them. In fact, waiting periods do nothing but punish law-abiding citizens. It keeps us from defending ourselves and our families. We suffer for the actions of others.

Hall isn't someone who's going to protect 2nd Amendment rights. If anything, she's going to push for stricter gun laws across America – and she's admitting it right before our very eyes. Gun rights activists can't turn a blind eye to gun controllers stating exactly what they want to see down the road. They're telling us their plans and we need to make sure we're doing everything in our power to keep their vision from becoming a reality.

Loss of Civility and Decorum in America

Congressional Democrats and radical Leftists, both in their ranks and in the Nation at large, threaten more than the loss of civility in America.

Watch the Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezYsm9L4f_k

They threaten, generally, the loss of law and order in society. Worse, they exhibit contempt for the Nation’s history; traditions; core values; and the Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic as they, themselves, are Godless.

As an expression of their deep-seated contempt for the Nation’s history, traditions, values, and religious ethic, undergirding the Nation’s morality, they threaten harm, potentially even loss of life against those Americans who don’t happen to agree with them. Worst of all, they threaten the very soul of the Nation. All of this accompanies their radical agenda for the Nation. They do nothing to hide their smug self-assurance and their sense of moral self-righteousness that they, after all, know what is best for this Country and its people. They do nothing to hide their crassness, their coarseness, their intellectual shallowness, and obtuseness. Even as some commentators call for Congressional Democrats to extend an olive branch to Congressional Republicans, there can be no coming together in America. It is much too late in the day for that.

The forces that seek to destroy the U.S. President, Donald Trump, have made that much clear. Democrats will not work with Trump. They never intended to do so, as they hate him for daring to defeat Hillary Clinton. There is too much bad blood.

Those radical forces in Congress, in the media, and in the public, also, have made it abundantly clear they intend to do all in their power to remove Trump from Office; and prior to impeachment and removal from Office, they continue, non-stop, to berate and obstruct and frustrate both him and his Administration and to always, callously, caustically berate and intimidate those who work in Trump’s Administration and members of the public as well who happen to support President Trump and his policy objectives.

The forces marshaled against Trump have attempted, many would say somewhat successfully, grid-lock in Washington, D.C. The ludicrous, costly, time-consuming, exasperating Mueller/Rosenstein probe is evidence of and a constant stark reminder of that. Americans who support the President must, therefore, be constantly vigilant and wary of Democrats and Centrist Republicans—those Republicans who have, through their words and actions declared themselves to be “Never Trumpers.” Americans must never place their trust in these people.

The calls for violence and the existence of actual acts of violence against the public that Americans have witnessed—especially in recent months, weeks, and even days—cannot, must not be considered mere hyperbole. And the cause for this violence cannot reasonably, rationally be laid at the feet of President Trump as the mainstream media, erroneously, but regularly and vociferously asserts. The cause for this violence must be laid at the feet of Left-wing agitators and among those Congressional Democrats and those officials who once served in the Obama Administration, who still have impact among some members of the public, namely, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and Obama, himself, among others—all of whom continuously parade before and preen before media cameras.

Increasingly, Congressional Democrats, the radical Left, and their cohorts in the mainstream media dare to question the continued importance of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. ConstitutionThey would even throw portions of it aside if they could. This is a disturbing but unmistakable fact and is inconsistent with any claim they might happen to make to protect and defend the Constitution. For they see this Document—the framework of a free Republic—not as a source of pride, a sacred Document to be upheld with reverence; a Document to be faithfully retained and obeyed; they see it as a disconcerting, confounding obstacle to their growth of government power and control.

In Closing, I would ask each of you ‘why’ precisely do YOU fight for the 2nd Amendment? So you can keep your guns is what the anti-gun groups say and the media thinks and say as they proselytize their agenda throughout America!  When I fight for the 2nd Amendment, I do it because I believe the Constitution ‘guarantees’ EVERY American the ‘right’ to choose ‘how’ they exercise their 2nd Amendment rights! I do it because I’ve known, and trained, people who live in awful neighborhoods who are only able to sleep soundly at night because of an inexpensive 9mm on their nightstand. I do it because our files are full of too many accounts of women being stalked and harassed by bigger, stronger men who there’s no way in hell they could fend off on their own. I do it because I’ve seen too many cases of people being shot by criminals over a pittance and whom should NEVER have been back out on the street.

Our world is an awful place in some ways. In that world, there are actual evil, selfish people, people who demand that you give them that which they have no right to. It could be your money, your virtue, or your life. They want it, and they’ll take it by force if they have to. The only thing that will stop them is a resolute person willing to stand their ground and say NOT TODAY.

Academic studies and real-world examples show that the chances of someone else needing a firearm are 100 percent, and so I fight not just for my right to keep and bear arms, but for theirs. I come at this from the point of wanting others to be able to defend themselves if and when they need to without some self-righteous bureaucrat interfering. I want them to have the tools necessary to protect themselves and their families because when you need a gun, little else will suffice.

That’s not selfishness. It’s altruism at its finest.

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President