proposed laws

PA Bill Number: SR377

Title: A Concurrent Resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States via a Convention of the States, pursuant to Article V of ...

Description: A Concurrent Resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States via a Convention of the States, pursuant to Article V of ...

Last Action: Referred to STATE GOVERNMENT

Last Action Date: Sep 17, 2020

more >>

upcoming events

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

FOAC Monthly Meeting - 11/8/2020
South Fayette Township Municipal Bldg. 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's The 'Blast' Newsletter & January 12th 2020 Meeting Notice w-Agenda :: 01/11/2020

The January FOAC Membership Meeting (Jan. 12th) will start off the new year by examining the many issues facing the defense of the 2nd Amendment from the incredibly important upcoming elections to the steadily growing gun control threat throughout Pennsylvania and the Nation. We hope you can join us!

This meeting will be in the Senior Citizens Center of the South Fayette Municipal Bldg. which is on the opposite side from our normal meeting room. We will have the Zoom online meeting option still available for everyone who can’t make the meeting physically by clicking on this link: - we need your support and involvement more than ever!

One doesn’t need to look hard to see that our Second Amendment rights are under fire by those who can’t conceive of why any individual would choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

A recent Harris poll, as reported by USA Today, showed that nearly 50 percent of all Americans are “concerned that their… right to bear arms… (is) at risk.”

It’s clear IF you walk the halls of Harrisburg and Congress working to defend against attacks on our right to exercise the 2nd Amendment to shoot recreationally, hunt and defend themselves and our families.

The Second Amendment isn’t the only right Americans see as threatened, however. Forty-eight percent of Americans also see their freedom of speech threatened while 37 percent of people see their freedom of religion threatened.

These figures aren’t outlandish to those following what is being said in the 2020 Democratic primary for president or those observing college campuses across the country. It is perfectly reasonable for Americans to worry that their right to keep and bear arms is in danger when firearm confiscation is a mainstream talking point among Democratic candidates for president. On college campuses, these aren’t rhetorical debates. They are violent protests against young adults by communist Antifa thugs who are afraid to show their faces.

Inherent Rights

We understand, however, that the Second Amendment contains crucial language that guarantees the preservation of all of our other rights as citizens. It reads that the “security of a free state” is dependent on “a well-regulated militia” made up of “the People” who have a God-given, pre-existing common law right to “keep and bear arms.” Without the Second Amendment, our ability to speak freely, worship freely and debate freely would face threats not even yet considered by those who participated in the Harris poll. The Second Amendment is inseparable from our continued Freedom.

The threats to our rights are indeed very real but the fastest way to lose them is to bury our heads in the sand instead of challenging those who wish to take them away. We’re simply must NOT be idle in this fray. We must be undaunted and unrelenting in the preservation of all of our rights.

Why Did the Selfless Acts of Courageous Self-Defense in the Texas Church Frighten the Media and Politicians?

As you know, armed citizens stopped a mass murderer at the West Freeway Church of Christ. When we plain folk in fly-over country heard that the attacker was stopped quickly, most of us thought, “Praise God.” In contrast, Joe Biden said it was irrational to allow anyone to be armed at any religious institution. Some journalists said they were terrified that ordinary citizens could be armed at church.

Why is the emotional response from politicians and journalists so different from ours?

I have a news flash for Vice President Joe and the journalists. Ordinary people are armed. Millions of us carry a legally concealed personal firearm in public. Unless you live in one of the elite bubbles in the US, then you are standing shoulder to shoulder with Armed America.

Concealed means concealed. Oddly enough, Joe Biden and company can’t see what is concealed.

We’ve seen their good judgement. We’ve met Armed America and we’ve know their restraint. We’re not surprised to learn that individuals who are licensed to carry a firearm in public are among the most law abiding groups that sociologists can find. That makes us different from Joe Biden and Co. Most elites don’t have a friend who drives a pickup truck, much less a friend who is a licensed concealed carrier.

We know and trust our neighbors- We have a positive opinion of our neighbors, our community and our town. We formed this judgement through experience. We’ve seen our fellow citizens solve challenging problems. We’ve seen their character under challenging circumstances, like fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and floods. We’ve seen a broad segment of society rise to the occasion and do their best for themselves and for those around them.

We’ve seen bad people do bad things- We’ve seen what criminals do. We’ve seen their effect on our family, our neighbors, and our communities. In our world, violence doesn’t happen in slow motion at 35 frames a second on a 60-inch screen; it happens in the parking lot at the corner store after dark. Our connection to reality is stronger than a TV crime-drama where the bad guy is brought to justice in 42 minutes.

Ordinary citizens like us defend ourselves thousands of times a day. We are not the easy victims the criminals expected. The bad guy meets Armed America and runs the other way. In that way, Armed America is making me and my family safer every day, just like the defenders did at the Church of Christ in Texas.

Armed America frightens the elites. Maybe the elites like Joe Biden had better stay home and have their food delivered by Amazon so they feel safe. Don’t tell them the Amazon driver might be carrying. That might upset Joe and the mainstream journalists.

How Gun Control Groups Mold GUN FREE ZONES to Fit Their Agenda

Radical anti-rights groups like Moms Demand Action, have re-defined “The Gun Free Zone” because apparently, ‘we’ had it wrong this whole time. First, let’s look into the minds of the anti-gun crowd so we can understand their madness.

In an article by Meg Kelly – Video Editor for “The Fact Checker,” published in the Washington Post, Kelly made the following claim: “gun-free zone” is subject to interpretation. Kelly’s claim is based on the notion that because Moms Demand Action has fabricated their own definition of “Gun Free Zone,” the term is now malleable. This is convenient for the anti-gun crowd because it muddy’s the waters and makes the measurement of “gun-free zone death” data nearly impossible.

Moms Demand Action “Gun Free Zone” Definition is as follows: “Areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is not a regular armed law enforcement presence.”

Well, this changes everything. At least in their minds and among those who aren’t paying attention. So, it looks like, based on the “new” definition, we are supposed to eliminate places like Sandy Hook, Parkland and others when trying to measure the death and destruction that occurs in areas where people are prohibited from defending themselves with a firearm. According to the leftist gun-grabbers, there’s nothing to see here because as long as there was a security guard on duty or law enforcement in the vicinity, it was not a Gun Free Zone.

Do we all remember Scot Peterson, the Sheriff’s Deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who ran and hid while students were being massacred? Don’t forget, civilians were prohibited from having guns on campus, leaving the safety of the students in the hands of Peterson, but because he was armed, and according to the new left-wing definition of GFZ, Parkland shouldn’t be counted as a GFZ. Keep in mind, according to the Anti-Gun Radicals, as long as a 500,000 square foot school has one armed security guard, even while prohibiting teachers, staff and lawful gun-owners from carrying a gun, it should not be considered a Gun Free Zone.

The anti-gun mob doesn’t want the “Gun Free Zone” being blamed for mass-killings because they support them. The creation of Gun-Free Zones is a political win for the left and another roadblock for lawful gun-owners. This is why the political left cheer in the streets when Walmart declares its stores gun-free. Should the public become wise to the dangers of the GFZ, the Anti-Gun Radicals would have to admit that they share responsibility for the loss of innocent lives. Denying the dangers of GFZ’s has become impossible, so rather than admit they support these “Killing Zones,” they attempt to change the definition so you can’t measure the data. They desperately scrub the blood off their hands, while simultaneously using school killings to support gun-control legislation. Yes, they want it both ways.

Kelly even said in her 2018 article: “Without a commonly accepted and uniform definition of “mass shooting” or agreement on what constitutes a “gun-free zone,” it’s difficult to settle this debate.”

Of course, it is. That’s the idea. The numbers show us that GFZ’s are deadly killing zones because the people are sitting ducks and the Bad Guys have zero opposition, but the gun-grabbers want desperately for that truth to be clouded in a dispute over the definition.

Based on reported accounts in a study conducted by Gary Kleck and backed by CDC data, there are approximately 2.46 million defensive gun uses in America per year. In other words: “lives saved because of guns.” These are specific cases where the presence of a gun stopped or deterred a threat.

The anti-gun left desperately clings to the claim that armed citizens do not stop mass-killings. How do they measure something that hasn’t occurred? When the anti-gun crowd tries to claim armed citizens do not stop killers, they are trying to use a hypothetical argument as data. Unlike the Kleck study, the claim that “armed citizens do not stop mass-killings” is impossible to measure because the “killing” they are referring to never happened and the “armed citizen” they are referring to, never existed. The entire scenario they are creating, never occurred, therefore it is impossible to measure.

By changing the definition of Gun Free Zone, the anti-gun crowd is able to avoid responsibility for putting children in danger while continuing to portray themselves as virtuous.

Academics and Science Show that California’s Universal Background Checks and Gun Ban Failed to Reduce Crime

A study of the effects of California's institution of Universal Background Checks, along with a state ban of firearms ownership for people who had committed a violent misdemeanor, has been published in The Annals of Epidemiology, volume 30, February, 2020.

The study covered a decade before the laws were passed to a decade after the laws was passed. It found the laws had no effect on firearms homicides or suicides. Here is the abstract of the paper,  from Science Direct:


In 1991, California implemented a law that mandated a background check for all firearm purchases with limited exceptions (comprehensive background check or CBC policy) and prohibited firearm purchase and possession for persons convicted within the past 10 years of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors (MVP policy). We evaluated the population effect of the simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies in California on firearm homicide and suicide.



CBC and MVP policies were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide. Incomplete and missing records for background checks, incomplete compliance and enforcement, and narrowly constructed prohibitions may be among the reasons for these null findings.

The statement that the firearms homicide rate did not change is not correct. It changed, along with the overall homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rate. As with suicides, the decrease in rates was virtually the same. The percentage of homicides with firearms varied by less than 10% from 1991 to 2000. In 1991 it was 70.1%, in 2000, it was 70.4%, essentially no change.

This is a powerful indictment against the usefulness of Universal Background Checks to reduce homicides or suicides.

Not only did the California law prohibit private sales of firearms; firearm sales are not private when they are required to be conducted and recorded through a government system. California created a completely new class of prohibited possessors, people who had been convicted of a “violent” misdemeanor.  Most proposals for Universal Background Checks do not go so far.  California has a much more extensive list of prohibited possessors than exist in federal law.

In this most favorable approach to evaluating the effectiveness of Universal Background Checks (evaluating firearms suicides and homicides separately) and an entire new class of prohibited possessors, there was no measurable effect on firearms homicides, firearms suicides, or overall homicides or suicides.

The authors of the study likely expected to find a positive effect. The fact they wrote the paper and reported the negative result reflects well on their integrity. Negative results are just as important in science as positive results.

The conclusions show a certain bias. Translated into easily digested English, they say, these laws may have failed because they were not strict enough, or enforced rigorously enough.

It is the classic leftist response. If the policy fails, it is not the fault of the policy. We just need to spend more and do more of the same!

It is ripe to have numerous firearms laws struck down by the Supreme Court.

Marine Corps Loosens Self-Defense Restrictions for Select Personnel

Just days after the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting was stopped by armed citizens legally carrying concealed firearms, the Marine Corps has announced a policy change regarding concealed carry on bases. The change represents a marginal shift in a pro-Second Amendment direction when it comes to personal protection on military bases.

According to MARADMIN 719/19, this policy change means that Marine Corps personnel who are “Military Police, Criminal Investigators, and Marine Corps Law Enforcement Program Police Officers who meet credentialing requirements for concealed carry of a POF for personal protection.”

The policy changes were accelerated in the wake of an active shooter incident at Pearl Harbor Naval Base and a terrorist attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola. In the first instance, two workers and one other was wounded by a sailor with reported disciplinary problems who used service-issue weapons in the shooting.

The terrorist attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola was carried out by a Saudi trainee who killed three people with a pistol he purchased at a firearms dealer. The terrorist attack ended when a local sheriff’s deputy killed the gunman. According to Breitbart News, the terrorist had roughly ten minutes with no armed resistance on a military base. That’s six hundred seconds. By comparison, the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting lasted six seconds. In other words, immediate response by armed citizens reduced the time a shooter intent on evil had by 99 percent.

Perhaps in the future, we will see the Second Amendment gain much more respect on military bases. Perhaps then, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who risk their lives in defense of this country and the Constitution will be able to exercise those rights if they choose to do so.

Another Anti-Gun Business Bites the Dust

TOMS Shoes is getting a lesson in Business 101. The anti-gun corporate virtue signaling they have been deeply entrenched in doesn’t pay the bills.

According to recent news, the Los Angeles-based company’s creditors are taking over TOMS in exchange for restructuring its debt. In a letter to employees, TOMS CEO, Jim Alling apparently shared the news that the deal will help the company deal with a $300 million loan due next year and will mean a new $35 million investment in the company from the new owners.

Two Left Feet

Last year at this time, TOMS was making news for its new gun control campaign, centered on getting Congress to approve flawed Universal Background Check legislation. In addition to direct lobbying, the campaign also involved a $5 million corporate contribution to gun control advocacy groups, a cross-country tour culminating in a rally and efforts to promote grassroots lobbying among customers.

Customers didn’t run out to buy TOMS products in response to their corporate support for gun control. TOMS, the business is now struggling.

Quote of the Week: Texas Church Killer lasted six seconds (FOX). While the CNN story notes “two members of the security team” took out the shooter, in this video, you see several parishioners pull out weapons (BitChute).  Welcome to Texas.  From the Daily Wire: Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden attacked Texas Governor Greg Abbott earlier this year for signing a bill into law that allowed lawful gun owners to carry firearms in places of worship, repeatedly calling Abbott’s decision “irrational” (Daily Wire).

1st Point to Ponder: Most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. Unfortunately, restrictions on firearms have not reduced the rate of suicide. Fortunately, informed gun owners are reaching out to other gun owners who are dealing with mental illness. Mental health treatment works. We’re changing the gun culture for the better, no thanks to the politicians.

2nd Point to Ponder: Most murders with a firearm in the United States are committed by members of criminal gangs. The police know who most of these murderers are. Gun-control laws that restrict the actions of honest gun owners have not changed the actions of known criminals. Most of the young people shot with guns are gang members who were shot by other gang members. Unfortunately, some of the victims are also innocent bystanders or victims of crime. Disarming the innocent victims doesn’t stop the criminals.

3rd Point to Ponder: Background checks don’t reduce the rate of violent crime. Criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shops or gun shows. Criminals get their guns the same way they get their drugs; they get them illegally from other criminals. (By the way, there is no gun-show loophole. Every law that applies outside a gun show also applies inside a gun show.)

Gun Control Group’s Lies to Remember: From

Once again, the gun violence crisis in Texas is in the spotlight after two people were shot and killed at a church in White Settlement on Sunday. Gun violence kills more than 3,000 Texans each year, and the rate of gun deaths in Texas increased 14 percent from 2008 to 2017.

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President

As a reminder, every gun owner can participate in the January 12, 2020 FOAC Monthly meeting from any PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android phone by clicking on the link below:

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:

One-tap Mobile: US: +19292056099,, 709303479# US (New York)

Dial by location:  +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)

Meeting ID: 709 303 479

Find your local number: