proposed laws

PA Bill Number: HB2440

Title: Providing for the designation of shooting ranges, sportsman clubs, hunting facilities and business relating to the sale and production of firearms ...

Description: Providing for the designation of shooting ranges, sportsman clubs, hunting facilities and business relating to the sale and production of firear ...

Last Action: Second consideration

Last Action Date: Sep 21, 2020

more >>

upcoming events

Rally to Protect Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms - 09/29/2020
Capitol Building 501 N 3rd St.

FOAC Monthly Meeting - 10/11/2020
South Fayette Township Municipal Bldg. 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA

US General Election - 11/3/2020
United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday October 7th 2018 :: 10/07/2018

Last week has been a whirlwind of activity in Harrisburg. As I’m sure you know, the Pennsylvania Senate has rapidly dealt a blow to the right to bear arms through its uncharacteristically quick movement of HB 2060. Part of this rapid movement was meant to help Representative Marguerite Quinn in her bid for the open 10th state Senate district seat.

Just to be clear about the timeline, HB 2060 was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, 1 October, with the only dissenting vote being Sen. Guy Reschenthaler. I was told that leadership was pretty hard on him. The legislation received its first reading (one of three) on Monday and subsequently was scheduled for its second consideration on Tuesday, October 2. FOAC clearly communicated our deep concerns regarding this legislation with every Senator. We worked with Sen. Eichelberger and several other Senators to put together an amendment that would have at least reinstated the concept of “friends” into recipients of firearms under third-party safekeeping, which was also highly sought after by the Pennsylvania sheriffs Association. Unfortunately, the amendment process failed with only nine senators voting for it. Please see the Senators who voted for the amendment below:

  1. Camera Bartolotta
  2. Kim Ward
  3. John Eichelberger
  4. Elder Vogel
  5. Scott Hutchinson
  6. Jim Brewster
  7. Michelle Brooks
  8. Guy Reschenthaler
  9. Don White

In the end HB 2060 passed by a vote of 43-5. I would ask all of you reading this to please thank the Senators below who voted against HB 2060 on final passage:

  1. Camera Bartolotta
  2. Kim Ward
  3. John Eichelberger
  4. Elder Vogel
  5. Scott Hutchinson

Immediately after the boat on final passage Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf stated that he will sign HB 2060 as soon as possible.

Subsequent to this vote on final passage I’ve received a number of communications from Senators who voted for HB 2060 extolling the virtues and benefits of HB 2060. What is clearly evident is that the Senators did not read the bill.

So instead of restating the problems with the bill I’m going to direct you to go to this link that is the release that attorney Josh Prince put out as a final analysis of just how problematic this legislation is. Please go to this link for a really well-written breakdown of the subtle but significant problems of HB 2060:

I would like to publicly thank all the other organizations and contributors to this fight against a disastrous anti-gun piece of legislation that will haunt us: Dave Dalton of American Gun Owners and Brandon Combs of Firearms Policy Coalition and Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Joshua Prince, Esq.’ and Adam Kraut, Esq.’ Brad Mellor, Esq.’ and Mike McCormick, Esq.’ and especially all of you who took the time and made the extra effort to reach out and contact all the house and Senate members. They did acknowledge that there was a tremendous level of opposition but the way they dealt with it was to say that it was all based on lies. I truly hope you read Josh Prince’s expose of this legislation because it goes to the heart and core of what we’re going to have to deal with for the next decade at least. From the bottom of my heart thank you so much for standing strong!

The Unintentional Consequences of Registries, More Lives Will Be Lost and People Will NOT Get Help

The Law of Unintended Consequences warns that for every action you take, there’s a potential for unforeseen problems to arise. Pass a tax and behavior might change in a way that creates less revenue. Ban something, and people might start using an alternative that may be more dangerous.

To be fair, not all unintended consequences are bad. It’s certainly possible to have something unexpected happen that can be a net benefit that you never saw coming.

But a lot of them aren’t.

The thing is, if you look at some proposals, you can see what some of the unexpected consequences might be. Such as a proposal that may land people on a registry barring them from owning guns if they’re suicidal.

The problem with this idea is that, even if voluntary, it may stop people from getting the help they need.

They would go, register themselves as unfit, then go about their day, confident they can’t kill themselves. The problem is, there’s still rope, cars and garage doors, and gravity. Rather than get help, they’ll get a government fix that will, at best, force them to shift how they would commit suicide.

And, let’s be honest, it won’t stay voluntary for long.

We all know that at some point, some enterprising politico will decide that there needs to be an expansion. This registry will merge with red flag laws to some degree, and almost anyone could get someone added to the list. Because of that, people won’t want to talk about what’s going on. They won’t want to let the people they love to know what’s happening because they don’t want to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

Look, suicide is a horrible thing for a family to endure. I get people are looking for answers, but let’s stop pretending that the weapon is responsible. It’s not.

PA Gov. Candidate Scott Wagner Slams the Weaponizing of Women's Issues by the Left

While Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court caused a nationwide controversy, complete with unsubstantiated allegations, vague stories, non-corroborating witnesses and the outrageous notion that Judge Kavanaugh may have drank beer in college, the landscape of due process for allegations sexual assault has been brought to the national spotlight.

The majority of leftist pundits and Democratic lawmakers have jumped to a conclusive decision to believe Dr. Ford and others who have brought allegations against Judge Kavanaugh before any investigation is complete, and, for some, even before Judge Kavanaugh had the chance to defend his honor.

Amidst a contentious Pennsylvania Gubernatorial election, GOP candidate Scott Wagner vehemently defended Judge Kavanaugh. Wagner called out the Senate Democrats’ shameful handling of the whole situation, which could have been put to rest before Judge Kavanaugh was even nominated, rather than making a national spectacle of Dr. Ford’s experience and fueling a presumption of guilt for Judge Kavanaugh. Wagner offered his sympathy for Dr. Ford, whose testimony gives the impression that she probably experienced a traumatic experience of some sort, while also condemning the Senate Democrats’ use of these allegations as a political weapon:

“We also witnessed the agony of a woman, clearly troubled by her experiences,” he said. “We cannot allow legitimate women's issues to be weaponized by the politically immoral. We cannot, any longer, tolerate scorched earth tactics for political gain."

Rather than allow for the FBI Investigation to return potential evidence to back up Dr. Ford’s story, incumbent Governor Wolf abandoned due process, a basic tenet of the American Judicial System, and subscribed to the politically motivated, ‘Believe Women’ narrative.

Arming Teachers A Better Option Than Teaching Kids To Throw Things

As school has been officially underway for a while, it’s now time for parents to try and use anything their kids parrot from school into a deeper political point. Sometimes, it’s just the parent tweeting their child’s opinion as if it’s the Wisdom of Solomon. Other times, a writer may use the kids and their comments in a different, more believable way.

Hell, in this case, I believe the kids said exactly what the writer claims. It sounds perfectly legit. But her deeper point is what’s total bull.

Parents are well aware that we live in a time of mass shootings. We worry for our children in a way generations past never had to. Every drop-off, every kiss on the forehead and “Have a good day” becomes precious. We don’t fret day in and day out, but that undercurrent of unease stays with us throughout the day until our little ones are back home with us. We can only hope that, should something happen at school, our babies will be spared.

The column is titled, “We’re teaching kids how to fight off an active shooter. Surely we can do better.”

Frankly, I agree. We can do better, but not in the way the writer thinks.

Our children shouldn’t have to be the ones to fight back, and fighting back shouldn’t be limited to the random objects one can throw at an attacker.

No, fighting back should involve teachers who desire to be armed pulling out pistols and returning fire. It should involve the supposedly responsible adults in the building acting responsibly for a damn change by arming themselves to protect their own lives if nothing else. If they put down an active shooter in defense of their own lives, then the kids’ lives will be spared by extension.

It’s not rocket science.

Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?

Second Amendment Supporters Should Worry about National Popular Vote

Since President Trump won the 2016 election, one idea has been gaining steam in some quarters – the National Popular Vote movement. Those pushing it note that two of the last five presidential elections have seen the person with the higher popular vote total lose the election. In 2000, Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. In 2016, Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

President Trump has been a godsend for Second Amendment supporters, primarily for his Supreme Court appointments. Certainly, if she had been elected Hillary Rodham Clinton would be pushing to enact the wish lists of Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, and other anti-gun zealots. Many are upset, thinking that democracy has been thwarted.

Now, let’s be honest, the United States is not a democracy. It’s a republic. Furthermore, the Founders were rightfully wary of a pure democracy. We’ve seen how “pure” democracies like Australia and the United Kingdom rammed through massive gun bans after mass shootings. To accept the National Popular Vote would be to push us closer to that brink.

The fact is, the presidential election is never about who wins the popular vote. It’s winning a majority of the Electoral College that matters. Back when the Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Electoral College was one of two institutions intended to make sure that smaller states were not drowned out by bigger ones (the other was the United States Senate, which gave equal representation to all states).

That wisdom has been borne out. In 2000 and 2016, the margin of victory in California alone was enough to swing the national popular vote in favor of the Electoral College loser. In 2000, Al Gore won California by about 1.3 million votes – and had a popular vote plurality of about 500,000. In 2016, Hillary won California by 4.3 million votes – with a popular vote plurality of roughly 2.9 million.

If the National Popular Vote were to become the rule of the land, then the state that routinely sent anti-gun zealots like Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Kamala Harris to the Senate would effectively control the White House.

What makes it even more dangerous is the method being used to pursue the National Popular Vote. More accurately, it is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

The Electoral College is enshrined in Article II of the Constitution. But some proponents of a national popular vote have seized on a loophole. They note that according to that article, “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

So, what they have done is to get various state legislatures to establish a compact between states. According to Ballotpedia, 11 states and the District of Columbia that represent 161 electoral votes, have passed legislation declaring that those electoral votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote when enough states to total 270 electoral votes have passed similar instructions. One of those states, as you might imagine, is California.

The same California that alone made the popular vote swing in favor of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. The same California with a claim to having the most onerous anti-Second Amendment laws in the country.

The fact is, this compact is stoppable, but doing so will take a lot of vigilance at the state and local levels. The good news is the state legislative races can be affected the most by grass-roots efforts. The threat of the National Popular Vote is a very real one and it is up to you to understand this threat and what it means to do to the value of your vote.

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President