proposed laws

PA Bill Number: HB102

Title: In hunting and furtaking licenses, further providing for eligibility for license.

Description: In hunting and furtaking licenses, further providing for eligibility for license. ...

Last Action: Presented to the Governor

Last Action Date: May 28, 2020

more >>

upcoming events

POSTPONED - Pennsylvania Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally - 06/8/2020
Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex 501 N 3rd St, Harrisburg, PA


FOAC Monthly Meeting - 06/14/2020
South Fayette Township Municipal Bldg. 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA


FOAC Monthly Meeting - 07/12/2020
South Fayette Township Municipal Bldg. 515 Millers Run Road, Morgan, PA

More events

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday April 12th 2020 :: 04/12/2020

The April FOAC Membership Meeting (April 19th) was originally scheduled to be held tomorrow, April 12th, however it was re-scheduled for April 19th due to the Easter Holiday. Unfortunately, because of the stay-at-home order of Gov. Wolf, and in consideration of everyone’s health, we have found it necessary to cancel the in-person meeting.

Thus far we have had several requests to hold the meeting online, or through the Zoom application where we normally offer everyone throughout Pennsylvania the opportunity to join us already. If you would be interested in doing this please send us a message at zoom@foacpac.org and let us know if you would like to try out that option for April 19 and if you have a preferable time. If we get enough interest, we would be happy to hold the meeting online to bring everyone up to speed with what’s going on.

****************

In anticipation of interest in a virtual/online meeting, we have tentatively set up a Zoom meeting and here is the conferencing link - https://zoom.us/j/517562174 - should we find that everyone would like to hold this online meeting on April 19th – PATRIOTS DAY. This link will show that it is tentatively set for the same time which is 10 AM but we can move it if there is a consensus on a better time. More information on this meeting is available at the end of this newsletter.

****************

Before we go any further, the officers of FOAC and the members of the FOAC Board of Directors would like to wish each and every one of you a Happy Easter, provided that is your faith, as this time of the year is a truly special event for Christians as they reflect upon their faith!

****************

Special Notice: The FOAC Gun Bash has been tentatively rescheduled for May 23rd. That is subject to change depending on the status of the current crisis.

****************

There are a great many challenges that have developed out of the implementation of the shelter in place order over this coronavirus crisis for civil libertarians and our freedoms which have been ignored by some government orders. Considering the rescheduling of the primary to June 2, there are important developments in the PA Primary races. There continue to be many issues swirling around the defense of the 2nd Amendment, even though it seems as if the world has come to a standstill, from the incredibly important upcoming elections to the steadily evolving gun control threat throughout Pennsylvania and the Nation.

Government Overreach in times of crisis in this current situations as governments have a tendency to overreach as they overcompensate for risk. This tendency may be in the public’s best interest, but it could also serve broader governmental interests. The public and government’s interest are not always one and the same.

After the September 11 attacks, a bipartisan Congress enacted the disastrous USA PATRIOT Act in an alleged attempt to stop terrorism. After the 2008 financial crisis, the progressive Congress implemented Dodd-Frank, which dramatically expanded federal regulatory authority over the financial sector. During today’s coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, legislators are contemplating similarly disastrous measures. Some politicians have called for the nationalization of the medical supply chain, while others propose draconian quarantining measures that could result in the expansion of government surveillance.

Crises often provide the public with a useful case study for understanding how systems can operate under stress, which is why some institutions are “stress tested” in times of peace and prosperity. Interestingly enough, the federal government conducts these sorts of national security exercises on a regular basis; however, presidential administrations, past and present, have largely ignored warning signs. There is even evidence that the government downplayed the warning signs of the inevitability of the September 11 attacks.

History would have us believe that government is not adept at formulating the necessary strategies to confront crises, but governments are simply comprised of people. People are inherently imperfect, and it is incredibly difficult to adequately address risks of these proportions.

We are in uncertain territory during this pandemic. This virus, as its name implies, is novel. We lack adequate information about its transmissibility, mortality rate, degree of criticality, and treatment. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Uncertainty makes it impossible to weigh costs and benefits, such as whether reducing the spread of a virus is worth the cost of an economic shutdown.” This feeling of uncertainty has thoroughly resulted in a “tsunami of negative news” by the media, which has in turn influenced politicians to act irrationally. Former Secret Service agent and Fox News contributor Dan Bongino has referred to some in the media as “hysteria merchants” and “panic salesmen.”

Measures Proposed

Some elected officials and media pundits have been promoting the hysterical notion that we can either implement draconian (national) lockdown measures on both the economy and individuals or be complicit in the mass death of millions. This line of binary thinking has become all too common, but it is surely NO WAY to govern a nation, let alone a nation the size of the United States that prides itself on individuals Freedom.

Here in Pennsylvania, there is been a very subtle, behind-the-scenes battle going on legislatively to deal with edicts coming from His Highness Gov. Wolf! By now I’m sure you know that the Gov. reversed his decision on allowing gun dealers to be open but in a very limited fashion. Technically speaking a gun dealer can only sell firearms because of the requirement that the only actions that can be done is those actions that relate to the completion of governmental paperwork, thus ruling out the sales of most other items such as ammunition, holsters, most any other accessory. Considering the fact that grocery stores and even the Gov.’s own cabinetmaking company remained open it causing the question the legitimacy of the decision-making process as well as the transparency and potential arbitrary attitudes behind it! Kind of makes us wonder what would happen if he decided that newspapers and the media were nonessential businesses? Do you think this is a constitutional issue? Do you think that Article 1, Section 21 and Section 25 (PA Constitution) limit/prohibit the actions of the Gov.?

Another even more egregious situation exists and that is the controversy over the issuance of Licenses To Carry Concealed Firearms by many Sheriffs. We’ve sent a message out earlier talking about the problems and the illegality of ceasing this operation. Over the last several weeks we’ve had many discussions with many sheriffs and have closely examined the process that currently exists for the issuance of these licenses and we can point a finger at the Pennsylvania State police for making it impossible for alternative procedures to be put into place by sheriffs to issue these licenses!

Let me explain; currently to issue a LTCF you must follow a strict set of guidelines and that includes completing the application, providing ID, a background check being completed and then a picture is required to be taken and you must sign a digital pad. All of this information is integrated into the software provided by (guess who!) The Pennsylvania State police and once all of this is completed, the Sheriff’s office can then print the license. This is where it becomes problematic because Pennsylvania law does not require a “mug shot” style photo, nor does it require a digital signature. Think about that for a moment! Even federal law doesn’t require these things! Heck, you’re not even required to sign traffic citations anymore. Every state I’ve looked into allows you to provide your own photo, even Maryland if you can believe that! Not here in Pennsylvania, where even a passport photo (good enough for the State Department and the Postal Service) isn’t good enough for Pennsylvania citizens.

If the digital mugshots our photo and digital signature were not required, Pennsylvania sheriffs could issue licenses by mail. Wouldn’t that be nice? Operationally speaking one has to wonder why Pennsylvania sheriffs cannot import your driver’s license photo into this software. Hmm….

In the last newsletter, I talked about the importance of getting an LTCF to being able to defend yourself off your own property and why Title 18 Section 6107 is such a bad section of law because it prohibits individuals without an LTCF from leaving their property! In our view, you can’t have a constitutional right that is balanced precariously upon the issuance of a governmental license because then it comes a governmental privilege and that should be repugnant to every citizen who believes in the Constitution and Freedom.

The roles and responsibilities of Pennsylvania sheriffs include court security and safeguarding the judicial process as well as dealing with prisoners, and that’s why they have to be very careful when having the general public come into their offices in this troubling time. Every Sheriff and Sheriff’s deputy I’ve spoken with is very determined to restore this process properly and believes strongly in the right of citizens to bear arms but the crux of the problem exists with the requirements of the Pennsylvania State police and the complete intransigence of the governor’s office who, according to legislative sources is completely opposed and adamant against making any changes to this process at this time. Let me state that again, the Pennsylvania State police and the governor’s office is intentionally holding this process hostage knowing full well the impact of this. Let’s not forget it is the Pennsylvania State Police that runs the Pennsylvania Instant Check System that has so many faults and flaws.

Once we are pass this crisis, we will be working closely with the legislature to address these issues but in the interim one action item that you can do is to make sure your Pennsylvania house member is a cosponsor on this legislation - HB1747.

Special Note: Should you be interested in seeing a truly great breakdown of the issues and history of the Corona Virus, please see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMJ0EmMfb3U

The video is roughly 55 minutes long but is the absolute best video I have seen that shows the true connections of how this virus started and from where!

Another Bloomberg Anti-gun Group (Students Demand Action) Targets Pennsylvania and 12 Other States to Register Young Voters

CNN reported that a so-called “gun safety group aligned with former New York Mayor, and failed presidential candidate, Michael Bloomberg” is targeting 13 “battleground states” in an effort to register 100,000 young voters to help determine which party controls the White House and the U.S. Senate in January.

The 13 identified states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, PENNSYLVANIA, Texas, and Wisconsin, according to the CNN report.

According to CNN, the group Students Demand Action will conduct a “virtual organizing program” to accomplish the voter registration drive. It replaces the originally-planned in-person campaign that was derailed by the coronavirus outbreak. The group will reportedly spend $1.5 million on the revised effort, which is essentially pocket change for Bloomberg, though there is no evidence so far, he is personally bankrolling the effort.

The Pew Research Center reported last year that members of “Generation Z” –younger voters born in the late 1990s to whom Sanders’ message seemed to appeal—“are projected to make up about 10% of this year’s eligible voters.” That is no small figure, and it is a signal to older, and frequently lethargic, gun owners that they need to vote in November.
Here’s what Pew Research said in an analysis of the 2018 election:

“Together, Gen Z and Millennials reported casting 30.6 million votes, a quarter of the total. Gen Z was responsible for 4.5 million, or 4%, of all votes. This post-Millennial generation is just starting to reach voting age, and their impact will likely be felt more in the 2020 presidential election, when they are projected to be 10% of eligible voters.”

This voter registration drive could be a threat to gun owners to ignore at their own peril. The Bloomberg-supported Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund has already pledged to spend $60 million to influence the 2020 election by helping elect gun control candidates. If anti-gunners gain control of Capitol Hill and the White House, it will mean an end to President Donald Trump’s quiet but effective effort to fill federal court vacancies with conservative, pro-rights judges and Supreme Court justices. It could also mean a Congress hostile to Second Amendment issues.

The importance of that cannot be over-stated. Currently, there are several federal lawsuits making their way through the federal court system, not to mention the legal actions taken over the past three weeks relating to shutdowns of gun stores by gubernatorial edict in several states where governors decided gun stores are “non-essential” despite a non-binding Department of Homeland Security opinion to the contrary.

The legal effort, involving such groups as the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and National Rifle Association, working together on at least a couple of lawsuits, was disdained by Everytown President John Feinblatt, writing an Op-Ed at CNN. He asserted that the Trump administration “caved” to gun rights groups by saying gun shop operations are “essential” businesses during the ongoing pandemic.

“It is both shameful and nonsensical for the federal government to deem gun stores essential, a special privilege that millions of other shuttered small businesses can only dream about,” Feinblatt wrote.

Gun owners won’t succumb to such rhetoric, but many others do.

This raises the question for ‘all’ Pennsylvania 2A grassroots activists and organizations: What are you doing to register voters, and turn them out in November? “Nothing” would be the wrong answer.

California Citizens Finding Out Just How BAD Their Gun Laws Are

Gregg Bouslog runs On-Target Indoor Shooting Range in Laguna Niguel, CA. It’s where I taught my son to shoot and where I’ll teach my daughter once the chaos lifts. He says that while others are stuck at home while the economy grinds to a halt, he’s been working nonstop at the range as the applications for background checks and permits are stacking up daily. Bouslog claims he hasn’t done business like this since the days of Obama.

As the owner of an indoor shooting range and gun store here in California these past 14 years we have never experienced such a huge demand for firearms and ammunition – even higher than the famous Obama rush of 2012/2013.

Bouslog says the most amusing and annoying part for the staff has been watching these first-time buyers discover just how stringent gun laws in California really are, including one of our newest laws requiring background checks before buying ammunition. Bouslog says it’s a bridge too far for the people who have been told their whole lives that it’s easier to get a gun than an abortion.

More than a dozen of these buyers (men and women) actually thought that since they filled out and signed everything, they could just walk out and go home with the firearm. Several actually said they saw how easy it was to buy a gun on TV and why did they have to fill out all these forms.

The majority of these first timers lost their minds when we went through the Ammo Law requirements. Most used language not normally heard, even in a gun range. We pointed out that since no one working here voted for these laws, then maybe they might know someone who did. And, maybe they should go back and talk to those people and tell them to re-think their position on firearms – we were trying to be nice.

Most were VERY vocal about why it takes 10 days minimum (sometimes longer if the DOJ is backed up) to take their property home with them. They ask why do I need to wait 10 days if I need the protection today o sweetie what you want r tomorrow? We pointed out again that no one working here voted in support of that law.

THEY REALLY WENT CRAZY when we told them that for each firearm they had to do the same amount of paperwork and they could only purchase ONE handgun every 30 days. Again, we didn’t [vote] for that law.

We had people cuss at us and stomp out when we explained that secondary identification had to be part of the paperwork, as they felt insulted that what they had wasn’t good enough. We have a number of Yelp reviews calling us names and other things about how bad we are because of this whole new buyer rush

Now they are navigating California’s convoluted gun laws for themselves and discovering that it is just not possible to walk into a store, buy a gun and leave with it in your pocket.

As these revelations begin to spread among liberal citizens in the state of California, will we see a shift in gun laws and support for anti-Second Amendment legislators? Only time will tell, but it will surely be an interesting question to ponder in the coming months and years.

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2020/04/10/815520/

Has America Come to the Point Where There Are Those Amongst Us Who Would Give Up Liberty for Safety?

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” While the original meaning of the famous quote from Mr. Franklin is taken somewhat out of context today (Franklin was writing about a dispute overtaxing the Penn family land to raise money for the French/Indian war), his original words do ring true when we speak of ceding our liberty to the government for some sense of security in the context with which we use them today.

Many of us will never cede our freedom in the pursuit of temporary safety and believe that if we do, we don't deserve either.

To frame it in perspective, think of the indignity suffered by law-abiding New Orleans residents during Katrina being yanked out of their homes at gunpoint by government troops using the backdrop of tragedy to forcefully confiscate private arms. Think of the search for the Boston bombers as government troops went door to door pulling people from their homes, conducting illegal searches in direct violation of their formidable 4th amendment rights. Think of power-hungry Socialist governors using media coverage of a virus, forcing private businesses to close and putting millions of Americans out of work. Not only does this threaten our economic survival but our constitutional right to bear arms during a time of media-driven hysteria, as well.

It was pleasing to see a column recently by Judge Andrew Napolitano. His work, titled “Coronavirus Fear Lets Government Assault Our Freedom In Violation of the Constitution,” powerfully reminds us of the abuse of our 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights by these power-mad totalitarians saying,

“Add to all this, the protection in the First Amendment of the right to associate and the judicially recognized right to travel – both of which are natural rights – and it is clear that these nanny state rules are unconstitutional, unlawful and unworthy of respect or compliance.”

As gun owners, we've been witness to the actions of demagogic men like Cuomo, Murphy, and just about every other Socialist (formerly known as Democrats), for years. They've been attacking our natural right to self-defense their entire careers. Now, as the mainstream dinosaur media play into the hands of these extremist zealots by sowing the seeds of panic and fear, we are proven right, once again. It’s clear that there are men and women, when provided the opportunity, will pursue their agenda in direct violation of our God-given rights and, in so doing, care nothing about the ramifications of their actions so long as it feeds their quest for power.

Eventually, they must be stopped.

Joe Biden’s Anti-Gun Chronicles:

First: let’s never forget how Joe Biden confronted a Detroit auto worker when he challenged Biden regarding his stand on gun control and the Second Amendment. This video tells the tale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FqGPbs0G0w

Bloomberg’s Constitutional Freefall: Gun Control, Stop & Frisk and Civil Rights Harassment

The one word that best describes Mike Bloomberg, is “Authoritarian.”

Many – including Democrats, Republicans, and others – were pleased and relieved to see him end his campaign for President. But just because he’s no longer a candidate, and is nearly a billion dollars poorer for the effort, don’t think for a moment that he’s no longer a threat to Second Amendment rights and to the Republic. When Mike Bloomberg first popped up on our radar with his Illegal Mayors Against Guns, he was reported to have a net worth of around $26 billion. Today, after donating well over $2 billion to various gun control causes, and spending another billion on his failed presidential bid, Bloomberg’s net worth is estimated to be around $57 billion.

You can bet that a big chunk of that money will still be working against your rights long after Little Mike is long gone from this world.

During his short-lived presidential campaign, there was a lot of talk about Bloomberg’s “Stop & Frisk” policies during his time as Mayor of NYC. Much noise was made about his “recently discovered” comments to the Aspen Institute about that policy (which AmmoLand news reported on in February of 2015), with quite a few folks on “our side” grudgingly agreeing with Bloomberg on this particular issue. After all, it is true that a disproportionate percentage of violent crime involving firearms in New York City, and many other large U.S. cities, is perpetrated by black and Hispanic young men, so it seems rational for the NYPD to focus their “Stop & Frisk” efforts on that demographic.

While Bloomberg’s attitude and policy was indeed racist, or at the very least, elitist, the most disturbing thing about it is how “Stop & Frisk” punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty few, just like gun control laws do.

Gun control laws in general take this same sort of approach. If your mission is to find people violating gun control laws, the natural tendency will be to focus your attention where the guns are – never mind whether those guns are at risk of being used in a crime. The rationale behind the passage of the laws is quickly lost. The objective becomes enforcing the gun restrictions, rather than preventing the underlying “gun crimes” that triggered those restrictions. So, in the name of reducing mass murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, murder, suicide, etc., law enforcement agencies target regular, peaceable gun owners, who might have slipped-up in following some obscure law.

We often hear gun control advocates say something like; “If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.” But how many lives are lost because people are unable to defend themselves, thanks to some irrational firearm restriction, and how many more lives are seriously harmed, with arrests, prosecutions, prisons, legal expenses, etc., for some minor infraction involving possession or transport of a firearm? But well beyond that, how many innocent people are debased, threatened, humiliated, delayed, and otherwise stressed and inconvenienced by authorities detaining and searching them, on the chance that they might have a gun stored in the wrong compartment of their vehicle, have a magazine that carries one too many rounds, or they stopped to eat at a truck stop on the wrong side of a state line? In the meanwhile, what crimes go uninvestigated because scarce police resources are dedicated to enforcing paperwork gun crimes?

The vast majority of Americans who are forced to jump through legal hoops and prove their own innocence before they can purchase or carry a firearm, and who face an ever-present threat of being targeted and harassed for exercising their constitutionally protected rights, are good, responsible citizens who would never commit any sort of violent crime.

Meanwhile, real criminals do what criminals have always done; they skirt the laws, ignore the “No Guns” signs, avoid the cops, and acquire the tools of their trade from fellow criminals – like the guys they buy their illegal drugs from.

Peer-Reviewed Study Shows That Unregulated Gun Shows Actually Saves Lives

In a paper published in 2008, comparing highly regulated Californian gun shows with relatively unregulated Texas gun shows, there was NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in suicide rates, or in homicide rates in California. The Texas gun shows, with far less regulation, showed a statistically significant drop in the homicide rate. From the study, on page 4:

“But our results provide little evidence of a gun show-induced increase in mortality in Texas. In fact, we find that in the two weeks following a gun show, the average number of gun homicides declines in the area surrounding the gun show. Aggregating across all gun shows in the state, we find that there are approximately 16 fewer gun homicides resulting from the 200 gun shows in the average year. In the sections below, we discuss several possible explanations for this counter intuitive finding. However, it is important to keep in mind that while these results are statistically significant, they are quite small – representing just one percent of all homicides in Texas in the average year.”

**Not surprisingly, the authors downplay this result. In fact, it is not even mentioned in the abstract. From the study:

 Abstract 

Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.

This was not a small study. It included data for 10 years and 3,300 gun shows. The two states chosen were California and Texas, contain 20 percent of the population of the United States. It was not conducted by firearm freedom advocates or the NRA.

The authors suggest two untested and highly suspect hypothetical reasons for the measured decrease in homicide:

  1. The possibility that police are somehow more vigilant after a gun show and are preventing homicides… or
  2. That criminals are using unregulated gun shows to sell their guns, thus depriving themselves of weapons to commit homicide with…

There are simpler, direct, and far more obvious possibilities. First, gun shows could make criminals more aware of the possibility of their victims being armed, thus causing them to delay their homicidal attempts. When criminals notice that a gun show is being held in an area, and people can more easily buy and sell guns, it is reasonable to believe they would understand potential victims could be armed. This belief would result in fewer homicide attempts and fewer homicides.

Second, victims may be more likely to arm themselves at a gun show, thus increasing the potential for homicidal criminals to be deterred by an armed victim.

The authors of the study chose to ignore these obvious, direct possibilities.

NEVER FORGET – Remember the coarse and callous words of Rahm Emmanuel, prior Mayor of Chicago and Obama’s White House Chief of Staff:

“You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

FOAC in the Media: on March 25 Pennsylvania state Rep. Dan Frankel wrote another of his legacy anti-gun Op-Ed pieces in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that was so full of holes that Swiss cheese look solid regarding his distorted views of gun ownership. Frankel was advancing the agenda and lies of the anti-gun community. Klint Macro and Kim Stolfer responded with an op-ed of our own. Please see our response to Frankel’s lies below at the link: https://triblive.com/opinion/kim-stolfer-klint-macro-law-abiding-citizens-gun-rights/

1st Point to Ponder: Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney on Tuesday (3/24) used the occasion of a virtual news conference about the shooting of five people in North Philadelphia – including a 1-year-old boy – to slam District Attorney Larry Krasner, calling on him to charge gun offenders to the fullest extent of the law, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

2nd Point to Ponder: Prof. Reyes, professor of law at Suffolk University in Boston, makes outlandish claims about what the Constitution means by equivocating the differences between the right to bear arms and abortions:

None if this is to suggest that all regulations and burdens on fundamental rights are permissible merely because we find ourselves in the midst of a global pandemic. The degree of the burden must always be balanced against the weight of the public interest, and some burdens may be too severe to withstand scrutiny. The attempt by some states to suspend access to abortion services illuminates this point. A woman’s fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy is one that by its nature is time-sensitive.

. . . . . . .

By contrast, there is no correspondingly crucial time pressure associated with rights to purchase firearms. There is absolutely no evidence of rampant looting or breakdowns in social order that would even remotely support the argument that exercise of Second Amendment rights demands immediate access to gun shops. (FOAC Grade for the Professor? Fails the Founding Father Test!)

https://www.telegram.com/news/20200408/as-i-see-it-gun-shops-essential-exposing-fallacies-in-constitutional-argument

3rd Point to Ponder: “There is no constitutional right to immediately buy or sell guns,” Brady Campaign President Kris Brown whined to NBC News, where it was dutifully picked up by other megaphone wielders like the UK’s BBC for global consumption. “And there certainly is no right to spread coronavirus while buying or selling guns.”

4th Point to Ponder: When it comes to sheer stupid statements, I’d say the prize has to go to Giffords’ resident ATF gun-grabber emeritus, David Chipman.

“Hide it behind the cans of tuna and beef jerky that you’ve stored in the cabinet,” Chipman advised “post-cable news, media, and entertainment” broadcaster Cheddar in an attempt to keep new time gun buyers ignorant and afraid. That’s some “gun safety organization,” counseling avoidance rather than training, but it’s not exactly like any of the “commonsense gun safety” frauds are qualified to teach anything other than melting down and demanding gun bans.

Important Pro-Gun Legislation Introduced at the Pennsylvania & Federal Levels:

Pennsylvania Pro-Gun Legislation:

HB1066: Title: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms and ammunition.

Description: An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms and ammunition.

HB1244: Title: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for definitions, for licenses, for sale or transfer of firearms and for Pennsylvania State Police, repealing provisions relating to firearm sales surcharge and to Firearm Records Check Fund and further providing for licensing of dealers and for administrative regulations.

Description: An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for definitions, for licenses, for sale or transfer of firearms and for Pennsylvania State Police, repealing provisions relating to firearm sales surcharge and to Firearm Records Check Fund and further providing for licensing of dealers and for administrative regulations.

HB1412: Title: In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons; and, in firearms and other dangerous articles, repealing provisions relating to firearms not to be carried without a license, providing for license not required, repealing provisions relating to carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia, providing for sportsman's firearm permit, further providing for licenses and repealing provisions relating to proof of license and exception.

Description: An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general provisions, further providing for definitions; in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons; and, in firearms and other dangerous articles, repealing provisions relating to firearms not to be carried without a license, providing for license not required, repealing provisions relating to carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia, providing for sportsman's firearm permit, further providing for licenses and repealing provisions relating to proof of license and exception.

HB1747: Title: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for prohibited conduct during emergency; and, in Commonwealth services, further providing for general authority of Governor.

Description: An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for prohibited conduct during emergency; and, in Commonwealth services, further providing for general authority of Governor.

SB98: Title: In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for prohibited conduct during emergency; and, in Commonwealth services, further providing for general authority of Governor.

Description: An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for prohibited conduct during emergency; and, in Commonwealth services, further providing for general authority of Governor.

SB531: Title: In general provisions, providing for findings regarding firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms and ammunition.

Description: An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general provisions, providing for findings regarding firearms and ammunition; and, in preemptions, providing for regulation of firearms and ammunition.

Federal Pro-Gun Legislation:

HB38: Title: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019

Description: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019 This bill allows a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. A qualified individual must (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by any state or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence. Additionally, the bill specifies that a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.

HB155: Title: Hearing Protection Act

Description: Hearing Protection Act This bill removes silencers from the definition of firearms for purposes of the National Firearms Act. It also treats persons acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of such Act. The Department of Justice must destroy certain records relating to the registration, transfer, or making of a silencer. The bill also revises the definition of firearm silencer and firearm muffler under the federal criminal code and includes such items in the 10% excise tax category.

SB69: Title: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019

Description: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019 This bill allows a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms. A qualified individual must (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid state-issued concealed carry permit, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence.

SB351: Title: Gun Owner Registration Information Protection Act

Description: Gun Owner Registration Information Protection Act This bill prohibits federal funding of, or support for, state databases that list (1) firearms lawfully owned or possessed, or (2) individuals who lawfully own or possess firearms.

Law Enforcement on Gun Control: From Epoch Times / 2-12-2020

Sean McGowan, executive director of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, a group with over 60,000 members in 11 states—including 6,000 members in Virginia alone—said the gun control bills have caused emotions to run high.

“I’ve never seen our membership as upset about any legislation as they are about this,” McGowan told The Epoch Times.

“It will have no impact on crime,” he said. “The criminals ignore the laws. Why would more laws make the criminals all of a sudden decide they’re going start obeying the laws? It’s ridiculous.”

. . . .

Kyle Reyes, the national spokesman for Law Enforcement Today, an online publication owned and operated entirely by law enforcement, said that officers he has spoken to won’t prosecute citizens, even if the bills become law.

“The countless conversations that we’ve had with literally thousands of officers between Virginia and the surrounding states is that they would sooner turn over their gun and badge than confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens,” he told The Epoch Times.

Gun Control Group’s Lies to Remember:

Everytown’s John Feinblatt said, “It’s shameful and nonsensical that the Trump administration has decided to put gun dealers and manufacturers on the same level as police, first responders, hospital workers, and other Americans who are risking everything to save lives during this pandemic. Governors should feel free to ignore this irresponsible advisory and do what’s best for their residents.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/01/moms-demand-urges-governors-ignore-trumps-essential-label-gun-stores/

Bloomberg's Everytown Law then followed up with an anti-gun, anti-Constitution memorandum.

The memorandum urges, once again, Governors and Mayors to essentially ignore the Department of Homeland Security and our nation's President and to be confident about banning gun sales. It falls way short of providing legal justification for this clear infringement of Second Amendment rights.

Click here to read what the Everytown misfits think of the Constitution in their own words in the memorandum: everytownresearch.org/documents/2020/03/memorandum.pdf/

Founding Father’s Statement on Freedom: "[O]f all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. ... History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

Closing Thoughts: Back in mid-January, well before the U.S. and other nations were apprised of the threat of the Chinese Coronavirus, Fox News contributor, Andy Puzner, pointed out that:

“Over the last six months, it has become increasingly obvious there is no limit on how far Democrats and their media allies are willing to go to bring down President Trump. Because of their obsessive hatred of the president, they have wantonly placed our economy at risk of collapse, created a false constitutional crisis, and most recently, opposed the takedown of an Iranian terrorist leader.”

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President

**As a reminder, every gun owner can participate, if the FOAC meeting is still held, in the April 19, 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: https://zoom.us/j/517562174

**Meeting Agenda Download Online: https://foac-pac.org/uploads/FOAC-Meeting-Agendas/20-03-08_AGENDA-KS-CG-DB.5.pdf

One-tap Mobile: +19292056099,,802388529# US (New York)

Dial by location:  +19292056099 US (New York)

Meeting ID: 517 562 174

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adSioEAVyf