proposed laws

PA Bill Number: HB1764

Title: In inchoate crimes, providing for the offense of possession of firearm or other dangerous weapon in public recreation area.

Description: In inchoate crimes, providing for the offense of possession of firearm or other dangerous weapon in public recreation area. ...

Last Action:

Last Action Date: Aug 20, 2019

more >>

upcoming events

FOAC Monthly Meeting - 09/8/2019
South Fayette Township Municipal Building 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA

Firearms Law Seminar - 09/21/2019
Trop Gun Shop 910 N Hanover St, Elizabethtown, PA

Firearms Law Semnar - 09/28/2019
Wicen's Shooting Range 3179 Mozart Rd, Furlong, PA

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday October 28th 2018 :: 10/28/2018

We are truly saddened by Saturday’s tragedy and ask everyone to keep the victims of the horrific shooting yesterday at the Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood in your prayers. There will be more to say and discuss later, but right now is not the time. Let the police do their work and the victims, and their families, try to seek out some solace and comfort as best they can.

Crucial November Election; We stand at the edge of the precipice of one of the most important elections of our lives. That is the reality we face … just days from now.

All the freedoms we hold dear are, quite literally, at stake in this election. The enemies of our freedom are highly organized and VERY well-funded … thanks to a group of super-rich political elites hell-bent on “buying” this election to serve their own agenda.

This self-serving cabal of billionaires and their pet politicians have conspired to permanently transform America into a socialist state.

They tried their best to win the White House in 2016 and, ever since, they’ve done everything possible to undo that election.

It is an all-out attack against us and our freedom, not with bombs and bullets, but with billions of dollars buying ballots. [some say a civil war]

You know their names: George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer—and their lap dog, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. He’s the genius who recently claimed, “We’re not going to make America great again; it was never that great.”

George Soros has pumped tens of millions into far left political candidates and causes; Michael Bloomberg has vowed to spend $80 million in this election and Tom Steyer says he’s spending at least $110 million—all to plant Democrat-Socialists throughout our government and turn America into a Gun-Free socialist utopia.

On November 6th 2018 every one of us must turn out and vote.

And every one of us must get someone else out to vote, too. No one sits this election out. The stakes are too high. Every vote is needed.

As law-abiding gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, you know the battlefield in this election.

I urge you to visit FOAC's Website for your Voter's Guide to obtain your voter’s guide of endorsed candidates in your area. Every single vote by you and other Pennsylvanians like you can make all the difference in preserving our freedom and saving our nation.

Do everything you can to help us win this election battle. VOTE!

A Clash Of Ideologies; A Nation At A Crossroads

No one can reasonably doubt that the United States is in the throes of a major cataclysmic event. Two factions face off against each other in mortal combat for the soul and psyche of this Country. We see, in the desperation of one faction, the lengths at which it will go in its bid to regain control of its agenda. That faction through its proxies in Washington, comprising Congressional Democrats and Centrist “Bush” and “McCain” Republicans, has maintained control for the last three decades. That faction has exerted a stranglehold on the Country, slowly squeezing the lifeblood out of the Nation and its citizenry through control, inter alia, of Congress; the Federal bureaucracy; the federal courts; the mass media; and, of course, through the Federal Reserve, part of the Central Banking system–the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Rothschild–that has extended its tentacles around the world, up to the present day.

Hillary Clinton, would have faithfully proceeded, in the footsteps of her predecessor, Barack Obama, toward the accomplishment of the Leftist agenda.

The Leftist faction was well on its way toward completing the items on its agenda, as Barack Obama was ticking off the items during his two terms in Office. Hillary Clinton was poised to be elected U.S. President. Leftists of all stripes were smugly confident. After all, hadn't virtually all the exit polls predicted a win–a landslide. They were certain that Hillary Clinton would secure the U.S. Presidency.

Contrary To What Some Americans May Think, The Present Situation In This Nation Is Dire. We Are In The Midst Of A Civil War.

We see two distinctive political/social factions fighting for control of the Country's direction. Two visions for our Country are coming into sharp focus, into sharp relief. Whichever side ultimately prevails will see its worldview realized. But, what are those two worldviews? How would each vision, if realized, affect this Country, and affect the lives of the Country's citizenry and affect the Constitution upon which the foundation of our Nation rests? We begin with this assertion: the two visions–the two worldviews–for this Country and for its people, rest on two mutually exclusive frameworks. Only one of the two can be realized. Democrats are a proxy for one vision. Republicans are a proxy for the second. It is not, then, a simple matter of a Republicans versus Democrats conflict that we are seeing. That is too simplistic. To frame the issue in terms of Republicans versus Democrats trivializes the matter before us.

We are engaged in a Civil War. The central question before the Nation, then, can be stated thusly:

Shall the Country continue to exist as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic as the founders conceived and intended, with the Nation’s Constitution, laws, and judiciary intact and supreme, subordinated to no external system of laws and external tribunals; or, will the Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation and Free Republic, see its status as a singular, unique, independent, sovereign Nation State, at once diminished, impaired, or severely truncated?

These forces are fomenting violence, anarchy, in a crude but, as they see it, necessary attempt, to force the Country back on the path they had established for the Country, a path that the Clintons, and Bush, and Obama–the willing accomplices of the Leftist agenda–had quietly, inexorably directed this Nation and its people to.

Obama Administration’s Chokepoint Documents Show Government Extortion of Lawful Firearms Businesses

Unsealed government documents prove federal cover-up in Operation Chokepoint,” a featured news release from the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) reveals. “This illegal campaign included threats from senior government officials that agency staff would be fired and bank officials could be subject to criminal prosecution.”

The documents from the Advance America et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. lawsuit “show that top leadership at the [Federal Deposit Insurance Commission] held strong personal biases and began a ruthless targeted campaign against the small-dollar lending industry [and that] These industries include local small businesses like fireworks and firearms companies…”

It’s instructive at this point to review some of the documents, particularly this appendix, and do a “find” search for the term “firearm.” We see firearm and ammunition sales listed right alongside Ponzi schemes, pornography, pyramid-type sales and racist materials. We see threats thinly masked as “explaining the nature of discouraged activities and the consequences banks could face for not adhering to the guidance.” We see firearms and ammunition merchants categorized as “prohibited businesses” and characterized as “undesirable” and “high risk,” and that they “pose ‘elevated reputational, and compliance risks’ to depository institutions.”

And significantly, we see “how a number of firearms merchants – a category identified as ‘high risk’ by the government – abruptly had their bank accounts frozen or terminated.”

But gun dealers are the ones posing “elevated reputational risks.”

I thought we were done with Chokepoint after the DOJ’s promise last year that the “misguided initiative” had been terminated and their pledge that “the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in short-term lending and firearms-related activities.”

This is ideological cleansing and economic cleansing. And steps to do what can be done do not give hope that anything will be done.

Case in point is Louisiana Rep. John Kennedy’s “No Red and Blue Banks Act,” which asks “Should the government award contracts to banks which refuse to lend to certain firearms dealers?” has attracted no cosponsors to date and has a projected “3% chance of being enacted.”

Lose the midterms, fellow gun owners, and we ain‘t seen nothin’ yet.

Dangerous Ignorance About The Electoral College

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seeking to represent New York's 14th Congressional District, has called for the abolition of the Electoral College.

Her argument came on the heels of the Senate's confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She was lamenting the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, nominated by Donald Trump, were court appointments made by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton has long been a critic of the Electoral College. Just recently, she wrote in The Atlantic, “You won't be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it's time to abolish the Electoral College.” [read: sore loser]

Subjecting presidential elections to the popular vote sounds eminently fair to Americans who have been miseducated by public schools and universities. Worse yet, the call to eliminate the Electoral College reflects an underlying contempt for our Constitution and its protections for personal liberty.

Regarding miseducation, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin, said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” His immediate successor, Josef Stalin, added, “Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

We are NOT a Democracy

A large part of Americans' miseducation is the often heard claim that we are a democracy. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, our Constitution — in Article 4, Section 4 — guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for democracy.

James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams wrote: “Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”

At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said: “We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty” is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

For those too dense to understand these arguments, ask yourselves: Does the Pledge of Allegiance say “to the democracy for which it stands” or “to the republic for which it stands”? Did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song “Battle Hymn of the Republic”? Should she have titled it “Battle Hymn of the Democracy”?

The Founders saw our nation as being composed of sovereign states that voluntarily sought to join a union under the condition that each state admitted would be coequal with every other state. The Electoral College method of choosing the president and vice president guarantees that each state, whether large or small in area or population, has some voice in selecting the nation's leaders. Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states. They would be states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41 percent of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7 percent of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government; “of the people”; instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states.

Recent ABC News Gun 'Report' Parrots Deceptive Statistics Just in Time for Election

You don't need a study to find most fatal police shootings take place in cities with the highest rates of gun-grabbing Democrat politicians.

“Fatal police shootings 40% more likely in states with higher gun ownership,” a Saturday ABC News headline with a scarcely-disguised narrative declares. The opinion they’re hoping to establish and reinforce is that lawful gun ownership results in unlawful gun use requiring lethal intervention by the state.

“The U.S. Constitution’s second amendment gives us the ‘right to bear arms,’ but what if having a gun for protection is actually putting you more at risk of harm?” the propaganda hit piece by ABC News Medical Unit’s  Dr. Tambetta Ojong asks. “A new study finds that a person’s chances of being involved in a fatal police shooting is [sic] higher in states with the highest rates of gun ownership, compared to those with the lowest.”

Dr. Ojong may be a fine physician, but displaying such ignorance right out of the starting gate shows she really ought to stick to limiting her expertise to fields for which she is qualified. The Second Amendment “gives” no rights, but merely acknowledges a right that preexisted its adoption. The notion that rights are privileges bestowed (and thus revocable) by government is foreign, as demonstrated by the UN's “Universal” Declaration. In this culture, they're considered “endowed by our Creator” which is inherent to the condition of being human if you're not.

As for the so-called “study,” a few precautions before taking it at face value would not be inappropriate.

While ad hominem arguments can represent a logical fallacy, it wouldn’t hurt to do some independent checking of your own on the names and political sympathies of the “researchers.” It also wouldn’t hurt to understand they’re working under the auspices of the Harvard School of Public Health, and to recall the words of former dean Deborah Prothrow-Stith:

My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns — and can not imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

But nobodys talking about taking your guns, just about some “commonsense gun safety laws,” right?

It is from attitudes of extreme bias and predetermined conclusions that we get the term “junk science.” And this new “study” offers more reasons to ask questions about motives and objectivity.

For instance, especially since the term “gun ownership” is being thrown around as the benchmark for violence probability, how many of the perps shooting at police and being shot by them are actual gun owners in the lawful sense of the term? There’s a difference between that and mere possession.

As long as they brought up highest rates, does anyone see an attempt to correlate what they are in Democrat as opposed to Republican strongholds? After all, the most dangerous cities in America are Bloomberg cities.

And it’s curious that Ojong makes a couple of admissions that deflate the impact of the headline, although they’re buried in the story and chances are many already influenced by that won’t dive down deeper and start questioning things.

“[A]lthough the study didn’t look into it, [“anti-gun researcher” Dr. David] Hemenway believes that the ‘combination of having weaker gun laws and owning more guns are all factors contributing to the higher rates of police shootings in these states,’” the “news report” confesses.

So, we’re getting politicized opinion from a biased party with skin in the game under the guise of authoritative science? And ABC News is putting that out there in front of millions of voters right before midterms where guns will play a major factor?

Talk about “fake news.”Talk about manipulating elections.

But they’re not done.

“It was unclear from the study if the shootings were justifiable or preventable,” Ojong continues.

It might be nice to figure that out first, right? Still, it’s probably safe to stipulate your average weekend in “progressive” enclaves like Chicago or Baltimore are probably going to represent lawless violence, making it fair to ask how disarming the “law-abiding” would do anything but expand the potential victim pool.

And no attack on the right to keep and bear arms would be complete without raising the “developed countries” scam – you know, the one that cherry-picks and intentionally leaves out countries that don’t support the narrative.

“In this study, people in these states — with higher gun ownership — may also be more likely to be shot and killed by the police due to a perceived fear of the police officer that the person they are dealing with is armed,” Ojong quotes Hemenway, in a last-ditch attempt to spook anyone she can.

So our freedoms are now supposed to be defined by the fear level of the enforcers and those who deploy them? And to alleviate that, we need a state “monopoly of violence”?

Federal Court Restores Second Amendment Rights Of Drunk Driver

On 28 September, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania restored Second Amendment rights to Raymond Holloway, Jr.

Mr. Holloway had his Second Amendment rights removed after being convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) for a second time, in 2005. The first time was in 2002. Under Pennsylvania law, a second offence with a blood alcohol level above .16%, could be punished as a misdemeanor with up to five years in prison.

After serving his sentence as work-release for 90 days, and paying a fine of $1,500, Holloway has lead a virtuous life without further arrests or convictions.

Holloway attempted to purchase a firearm in 2015. He was denied because of the DUI conviction. People who have state misdemeanor convictions which can be punished with more than two years in jail, are prohibited possessors under federal law.

Holloway sued under the precedent of Binderup v. Sessions, from the Third Circuit, of which Pennsylvania is a part.

In Binderup, the Third Circuit found that minor, non-violent felonies were not sufficient to permanently remove a persons Second Amendment rights. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court refused to hear it. Thus, Binderup is binding precedent for the Third Circuit.

From Holloway v. Sessions:


Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Holloway. Holloway’s disqualifying conviction was not sufficiently serious to warrant deprivation of his Second Amendment rights, and disarmament of individuals such as Holloway is not sufficiently tailored to further the government’s compelling interest of preventing armed mayhem. The court will grant summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunctive relief to Holloway. An appropriate order shall issue.

The Binderup v. Sessions decision is far from perfect. It requires individuals to bring lawsuits to regain their Second Amendment rights. Each case is judged individually, at great expense in time and treasure.

As the Second Amendment is restored to full Constitutional authority with other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the number of classes of prohibited possessors should be reduced.

It has been part of the “salami slice” technique used by opponents of an armed population, to keep increasing the categories of people restricted from exercising their Second Amendment rights under federal law.

Justice Thomas has been urging that the Second Amendment be protected with the vigor the Supreme Court uses to protect other enumerated rights in the Constitution, such as the First Amendment.  From scotus

Thomas dissented from the court’s announcement that it would not review a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected a challenge by two California men, who had argued that the waiting period was unconstitutional for, at the very least, state residents who already own a gun or have a license to carry a concealed weapon. When the Supreme Court rejected the men’s petition in February 2018, Thomas was sharply critical of both the 9th Circuit’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s disposition of the case. He argued that the lower courts had generally failed to give the Second Amendment “the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.” “If a lower court had treated another right so cavalierly,” Thomas continued, “I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court,” and the justices’ “continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables” the double standard that the lower courts apply to gun-rights cases.

Citizens do not lose their right of free speech or the right to practice their religion if they are under indictment. They do not lose their right to vote because of a restraining order or a minor domestic violence conviction.

These reforms can be accomplished by Congress. They are infringements of Second Amendment rights put in place by Congress, not by the Constitution.

The Holloway case is another step in the process of restoring Second Amendment rights.

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President