proposed laws

PA Bill Number: HB829

Title: In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;

Description: An Act amending the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;

Last Action: Act No. 57 of 2024

Last Action Date: Jul 15, 2024

more >>

decrease font size   increase font size

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday November 22nd 2020 :: 11/22/2020

As the legislative session and elections winds down, I took the time to go to the shooting range this past Friday for the first time this year. The trip was ostensibly to cite in my favorite rifle (Springfield Armory M1A) that I just had re-barreled but it was also to collect my thoughts from a long and taxing year, something all of you can appreciate. One of the other individuals on the range talked about how he voted for Joe Biden for a variety of reasons while at the same time stating that Biden wouldn’t take “his guns”! This individual was promptly engaged by several other individuals which I was watching from a short distance. And it occurred to me, that America is supposed to have well over 100 million gunowners and yet Donald Trump only got 73 million+ votes.

As I listened to the discussion with this gun owning Joe Biden supporter being “educated” by other shooters, it became clear that he didn’t have a clue what Joe Biden’s record was on the Second Amendment and that he made no effort whatsoever to even look into it. Yet sitting at his side right there at the shooting bench was a smart phone that is a gateway to an incredible world of information at his fingertips that he chose not to even try to educate himself.

So, if I had to guess, perhaps 40 million of those presidential votes, that Donald Trump got, were gunowners meaning that approximately 60 million+ gun owners either didn’t vote or voted for Joe Biden in some capacity, if my guesswork is correct. I’ll readily admit that I am singularly focused by my personal passions and beliefs and how important the Bill of Rights is to me. But I think this demonstrates that in America we have a larger problem in that many Americans have no connection to the importance of the Bill of Rights in our society and how their constant infringement and degradation will work against us all!

Biden Talking of "Unity" Is Both Hypocritical and Delusional

In one of Joe Biden’s recent press conferences, after being declared president-elect by news organizations, he promised to be a leader who “seeks not to divide but to unify.” Making that assertion after the campaigns we have seen, not to mention the light-years-apart treatment of the candidates, while Donald Trump is still adamantly disputing the election because of alleged Democrat malfeasance is, at a minimum, ironic. But we need to go further and recognize that even the possibility of Joe Biden uniting us is a delusion.

Agreement on the specific ends we want to achieve is unattainable because our desires are mutually inconsistent. Any agreement would be very limited, at best, on even very broadly defined issues, and once we look further than vague, aspirational language and feel-good generalities, Americans disagree on virtually everything.

All of us want to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, but we are vastly different in the tradeoffs we are willing to make among our desires, not to mention who we think should pay our bills.

Diverse individuals have diverse preferences.

In fact, politics as currently practiced eviscerates the one thing Americans could agree about. This reflects the little-recognized fact that we have greater agreement on what all of us want to avoid than on what all of us want. None of us wants what John Locke called our “lives, liberties, and estates” violated. To a large extent, each of us wants rights and property defended against invasion. Respecting all of our property rights reduces the risk from predation for each of us. But creating added rights and privileges for some at the expense of others’ equal rights and privileges makes government the most dangerous predator, even when who is selected to do so is determined by majority vote.

Each of us would like the freedom to peacefully pursue our own goals. As Lord Acton put it, “liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition,” because freedom to choose for ourselves is always the primary means to our ultimate ends. That is why the traditional functions of government are to protect us from abuse by our neighbors and foreign powers, while its greatest threat is the abuse of that power to become predators against its very own citizens. That is why Acton recognized that liberty requires “the limitation of the public authority.” But we are far from any consensus on that today.

In contrast, talk of political unity is rhetorical cover for those who are in power to coerce those who disagree with them. They benefit themselves at others’ expense, taking others’ resources and making them acquiesce in what they object to. And unlike markets, in which greater disagreements about value create greater net benefits from voluntary arrangements, “unifying” political initiatives are just ways to control who will be forced to do what for others, driving Americans apart while hamstringing cooperative arrangements and squandering the wealth they would have created.

Grand invocations that “I will unify us” are actually shorthand for “We disagree about many things, but those in this group are unified against others’ preferences, and we mean to get our way, regardless of their well-being and desire,” which is made clear by the demonization of anyone who doesn’t support the supposed “unity” position as divisive.

That kind of unity is tyranny.

Strengthening our union actually runs along a different path than the unity of 50 percent plus one, unified against the interests of others. It is uniting in a common commitment to honoring one another’s rights and the liberty this makes possible for all of us. Without unity in that, we can never achieve the kind of unity that is actually desirable and achievable. The alternative is the prospect of more of what we have experienced of late, which resembles what Thomas Hobbes called “a war of all against all.” But if we are united only by the ongoing fight to win that war against other Americans, we are selling out the birthright we have from our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

So, what is the Status of the Presidential Election at this point and the Challenges?

It seemed best at this point to just present you with a collection of the most important links we have that will take you to a great deal of information that crosses several areas of most people’s interest. The concerns over the outcome of the election continue to grow as does the likelihood that there were more than just casual shenanigans a foot in this race. Having been involved in politics for such a long time, seeing the election unfold the way it has been incredibly troubling!

We invite you to take a look at these links below because it is likely that most of you have not seen all of them or even a majority of them and they should provide you with a good foundation of where we are at at this point.

Selected Information on The Trump Election Challenges to Date

  3. Who is Sydney Powell:

Dominion Voting Systems Issues – PA & Nationally

  1. Is Dominion Shredding Documents?
  2. Why did Dominion Back Out of PA State Government Hearing at Last Minute if they have Nothing to Hide?
  3. More on Dominion Backing Out of the PA State Government Hearing:
  4. PA’s Montgomery County Wild Gyrations in Voting Numbers Exposed:

How Does the Election Fraud Work? Watch Security Experts PROVE How It Happens


Who Picks the Electors for Each State?

On the issue of the state picking the Electors; The U.S. Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore (2000) that the state legislatures have the ultimate authority to pick the electors for the Electoral College at any time:

The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

When there is pervasive fraud that steals an election, as just occurred, then it is the constitutional duty of the state legislature to reject the fraud and appoint electors as appropriate.

IF you are willing/interested in taking further action then we suggest you reach out to House and Senate leadership to express your thoughts in either a letter or email format and the contact information for you to do that is listed below.


Contact Rep. Bryan Cutler (R), Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives

District Phone: 717-284-1965 / Capitol Phone: 717-783-6424 / District Fax: 717-284-1968

Direct E-Mail:

Speaker of the House Bryan Cutler contact page:


Contact Sen. Jake Corman (R), Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader

District Phone: 814-355-0477 / Capitol Phone: 717-787-1377 / District Fax: 814-355-6046

Direct E-Mail:

Sen. Jake Corman contact page:

What Else Can You Do to Fight Back Against the Craziness All Around Us? Here Are Some Suggestions!

Don’t subscribe to or buy progressive newspapers like The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or even your local newspaper if it panders to the left. There are really good conservative daily newspaper alternatives like the New York Post, Epoch Times, Conservative Daily News, American Thinker and Washington Examiner. Pew Research reports newsroom employment dropping 51% over the past decade. Force them to downsize to even further. Falling readership will force advertisers to take their business elsewhere and these newspapers will fail.

The same can apply to major television and cable news channels. Be very selective in choosing which to watch.

Punish companies and their CEOs that virtue signal by stopping your purchases of their products and services. 

Be it the NBA, pro football, Ben & Jerry’s, Starbucks, Chick-fil-A, Nike, Levi Strauss, Intel, Peloton, etc., choose an alternative or go without. Choosing Dunkin Donuts over Starbucks, for example, will save money and you will be doing your part, as Nancy Reagan once said, by “just saying no.”

Never forget that what Democrats can never take from you and I and 73 million Americans is the love we have in our hearts and minds for this great country and the power of peaceful protest. God bless the USA!

Media and Academia Bias Feeds Off the Manipulation of Science by The Left

It is clear that the 2020 election has revealed jaw-dropping levels of Liberal/Progressive bias in the media! From deliberately ignored issues to information considered impolite to those dominating the agenda.

To many of us, it seems as if the power being exercised against freedom of thought and expression has grown like a cancer, completely out of control. Many seem resistant to comprehending that the bias extends far beyond the media, to well-funded think tanks and “research” devoted to creating ammunition for the left/progressive conclusions the media uses to justify their one-sided reporting.

An excellent example of the production of the groundwork for the bias infesting media today is “research” published in 2003, in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin. Supported by $1.2 million in federal money, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition” supposedly provided an “elegant and unifying explanation” for political conservatism. If you have been paying attention this year, some of its themes will seem familiar.

The authors supposedly found resistance to change and tolerance for inequality at the core of political conservatism. While proclaiming their findings to be nonjudgmental, they also concluded that conservatism was “significantly linked with mental rigidity and close-mindedness, increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, decreased cognitive complexity, decreased openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, personal needs for order and structure, need for cognitive closure, lowered self-esteem; fear, anger, and aggression; pessimism, disgust, and contempt.”

The researchers also equated Hitler and Mussolini with Ronald Reagan as “right-wing conservatives…because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form.” And the types of inequality conservatives supposedly favored included the Indian caste system, South African apartheid, and segregation in the US.

Of course, according to the study, that “does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled.” But its authors certainly implied it.

The study also denigrates conservatives for close-minded resistance to political change, presumably in contrast to more open-minded liberals and progressives. However, rather than closed-mindedness, hesitation to adopt sweeping changes in government originating in someone’s imagination might represent the frequently reinforced recognition of politically imposed changes’ consistent track record of failure. It won’t work out that way is the economist’s standard response to many well-intentioned policy proposals. Realism is not necessarily conservatism, but it often looks quite similar.”

America was founded to protect the freedoms of every citizen from government coercion. One need not be a genius to recognize the value of conserving that. But this Psychological Bulletin “research,” now almost two decades old, missed that point entirely, by treating all resistance to change as equivalent, regardless of the value of what is being defended, and by misrepresenting American conservatives’ views on inequality, as well as other cheats. Far from being an “elegant and unifying explanation” for political conservatism, it was just one more libel against it.

A more accurate result of such research would have been that many self-proclaimed conservatives have deviated from the principles they espouse. That deserves criticism.

The 2020 election results will be a test of earlier liberal/progressive manipulations of how Americans think about things. But at this point, perhaps more important will be whether, after the fact, people recognize how much they have been manipulated, which is the first step to thinking more accurately, which must precede learning to effectively resist that manipulation.

How Would a Biden Administration Attack the Second Amendment Should He Be Confirmed as President?

Let’s be clear, Biden’s given plenty of public comment to know exactly what he wants to do if he’s unchecked. It’s nothing short of ending Second Amendment rights and reducing them to a nanny-state privilege that’s closely monitored and meted out piecemeal to a select few. In point of fact, we are already seeing signs of a proposed gun control agenda in a potential Biden-Harris administration and this would most likely begin with immediately “reinvigorating” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by nominating a director who will promote the gun control/gun violence agenda as well as expand the intrusive regulatory oversight mission far beyond its current scope.

Biden has also argued for the same failed so-called mandatory “smart gun” technology for which he led a task force in the Obama administration. It wasn’t ready for testing then and it’s still not ready today. That was the beginning of the Biden gun control agenda.

The Biden White House would most likely use executive action to overhaul how the ATF classifies certain firearms according to the National Firearms Act. Taking such an action by fiat would instantly turn millions of lawful gun owners into criminals for possessing what was already legally purchased if they don’t fall in line. Noncompliance would leave only one alternative - confiscation.

On November 10, gun rights activist John Crump published a piece for with details of a leaked BATFE conference call in which BATFE Acting Director Regina Lombardo and Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson participated.

According to the article, “Acting Director Regina Lombardo told those in attendance that the anti-gun Biden transition team has reached out to the ATF to get the agency’s ‘top priorities.’”The item went on to note that “Lombardo told those on the call that her priorities would be pistol braces and 80% lower receivers.”

It is unclear from Crump’s initial report how Lombardo wants the BATFE to target these items, but under a proper reading of federal law, the agency’s options are limited.

Pistol stabilizing braces are an item that attaches to the rear of many configurations of commonly-owned semi-automatic pistols that helps stabilize the pistol on a shooter’s arm so that they may effectively shoot the firearm with one hand. These items are particularly valuable for differently-abled shooters who may not have the use of two hands. BATFE has approved several arm braces for this purpose. At present, Americans own over 4 million of these items.

In early 2017, BATFE reconsidered its incorrect reading of the law. In a letter to pistol stabilizing brace manufacturer SB Tactical, the agency explained,

To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational ‘use’ of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute ‘redesign,’ such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced. 

For three years gun owners enjoyed some measure of levelheadedness on the pistol stabilizing brace issue but that appears to be over. The BATFE – perhaps anticipating a more anti-gun political climate – has begun targeting pistol stabilizing braces again.

Another area of major focus is for the administration to ban importing so-called “assault weapons.” Experts believe that executive action could only ban importing these firearms and that legislative action would be needed for Biden’s preferred avenue of banning the sale and manufacture of these common firearms. New data shows there are nearly 20 million Modern Sporting Semi-Automatic Rifles in circulation today.

Biden would also destroy the firearm industry by pushing to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, exposing manufacturers to harassing lawsuits by activist lawyers that long to bankrupt manufacturers for political means and use the courts to advance an agenda that doesn’t survive legislative scrutiny.


Biden unequivocally admitted to CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a 2019 interview that he would pursue an unconstitutional firearm confiscation agenda.

“To gun owners out there who say a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns…” Cooper said.

Bingo,” Biden interrupted. “You’re right, if you have an assault weapon,” which the former vice president deridingly refers to when he speaks of MSRs. “The fact of the matter is they should be illegal. Period.

That goes much further than reenacting the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, to which in the same interview, Biden agreed it didn’t reduce crime. That means he’d go after the more nearly 20 million common semi-automatic firearms in circulation today.

“What I would do is institute a national buyback program,” Biden explained. He admitted then that outright confiscation of so-called assault weapons for lawful ownership was a Constitutional hurdle.

“Right now, there’s no legal way that I’m aware of where you could deny the right if they had legally purchased them,” Biden told CNN of his confiscation plans. “But we can, in fact, make a major effort to get them off the street and out of the possession of people.”

That was 2019.

NEVER forget what Biden told the Detroit auto worker, “I Don’t Work for You”!

Look for the Biden administration to be hounded by our perennial gun control cronies billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his well-funded gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action. They’ll be joined by others including Brady and Giffords. Both groups issued press releases on their laundry list of action items to limit and deny Second Amendment rights.

Georgia Senate Races in January Will Dictate the Severity of Federal Gun Control for The Foreseeable Future

The two runoff elections will either insulate gun owners from the more severe actions of the Biden administration (should challenges fail) in attacking the Second Amendment or they will cement the total control of the left over the dialogue on what the Second Amendment means moving forward.

Hopefully the Georgia gun owners will present a more coordinated and solid front in the upcoming elections.

Unfortunately, if the concerns over the manipulation of voting numbers and machines by Sydney Powell and others who have demonstrated the weaknesses of these new voting machines and mail-in balloting, it is likely to be a very touching go situation where in which we could seriously come up short.

If that happens, then total control will shift to the Biden administration and considering who is being placed in the different appointed positions is very likely that the Second Amendment will start on the path that has already been paved by the 10th amendment, essentially becoming irrelevant.

The Senate can make or break the White House’s agenda. With a Democratic Senate, Biden would have allies to easily confirm his nominees, including for cabinet positions, and shape passage of legislation. If Republicans keep control, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell can block Biden’s agenda.

GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler will face Rafael Warnock, a Black pastor from the church where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached. And Republican Sen. David Perdue, a top Trump ally, will face Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff.

Both Democrats are dedicated anti-gun individuals. Once more with control of the Senate like this, it will lay the foundation for the Biden administration to increase the number of senators, change the electoral college or eliminate it as well as dictate the future of the courts through any judges that would be appointed to the federal level.

Washington Post Demands Elimination of Electoral College

The Washington Post editorial board have finally blurted out what’s been on their minds the last four years: the Electoral College “is no longer tenable for American democracy.”

After whining about how much power Iowa farmers and Wyoming ranchers have over California and its artichoke growers, the Posters get to their point: “Mr. Trump became president in 2016 despite earning 3 million fewer votes than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Now, he has come close to winning reelection despite losing the popular vote by a far greater margin.” What they fail to mention, though, is that most (if not all) of the Democrats’ margin in 2000, 2012, 2016, and perhaps 2020 was accounted for solely in the state of California. The hugely populous and overwhelmingly Democrat state skews national totals that might otherwise amount to a wash or even an easy GOP win (as it was in 2016). As columnist David Harsanyi points out, “Running up the score in big states gives partisan activists fodder, but it is irrelevant. If Donald Trump ran for the national vote, he might well have won it by spending all his time in California and New York talking about things that matter to Californians and New Yorkers. The entire dynamics of elections would be different. Our election is geared toward winning states, not people.” In that case, Trump managed to win enough of the 51 separate state elections to prevail, even if by close margins.

And no discussion of abolishing the Electoral College would be complete without mentioning the Left’s National Popular Vote movement, which has connived legislators in 15 mainly Democrat stronghold states to join into their interstate compact and thereby subvert the Electoral College. The Post’s editorial admits that changing the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College would be practically impossible (perhaps thanks to those dozen or so swing states that seem to matter in every election), so the National Popular Vote subversion is perfectly appropriate.

Author Richard P. Bruneau makes an even more eloquent and impassioned case for the Electoral College: “The founders designed the Electoral College to moderate the influence of large states and big cities over small states and rural districts. Rhode Island, for example, with [four] electoral votes would hardly matter if the presidency were decided strictly by a national popular vote. Presidential candidates could and would ignore states like Rhode Island and focus on states and districts with large population centers, offering more bang for effort and dollars. Small-state electoral votes have often affected the national outcome. Eliminate the Electoral College, and the voice of voters in small states all but disappears in the presidential election.”

Read More:

Support for Gun Control Falling (?) Even in Notoriously Biased Polls

In 2011 public opinion polls showed support for gun control was at its lowest point in 40 years according to the polling organization Gallup. At that time the findings also showed a double-digit drop for citizens wanting stricter gun control until the numbers peaked after the tragic murders in Parkland, Fla.

Now it seems, Americans are showing with their pocketbooks and they’re all applying for licenses to carry concealed firearms that they want far less gun control laws now than they did in 2016 when Hillary Clinton campaigned and lost on a platform of enacting bans on modern sporting rifles and clamping down on Second Amendment rights. American support for stricter gun control laws slipped seven percent in just one year all the while firearm sales are breaking records and rioting and looting is wreaking havoc in American cities as gun control politicians called for, and actually did, defund the police. Right now, the support for gun control stands at the historic low of 43 percent support gun control with the majority of Americans wanting fewer gun control laws or for them to remain the same, according to the poll.

Digging deeper into the data shows several more findings.

Support for a total ban on handguns is at historic lows. Democrats are more likely to support gun control than Republicans, which might contribute to the overconfidence in a “blue wave” that never materialized in Congressional elections.

Remember this was a year a so-called blue wave was supposed to usher in a landslide of gun-control candidates if pre-election polling was to be believed. The election post-mortem, however, is showing gun control elites a completely different picture. Gun rights candidates overperformed.

Firearm production figures and background checks are on a continual and steady climb upward, yet these polls try to tell America that gun ownership remains flat. Well, that’s just flat-out wrong.

What is more likely the case is many gun owners are distrustful of pollsters and self-select out of these surveys, meaning pollsters are over-sampling non-gun owners. It’s hardly inconceivable that a firearm owner wouldn’t want to reveal their private firearm ownership information for concerns of theft or being targeted for political retribution and confiscation

Polling completely blew the 2016 election with President Donald Trump’s victory and screwed it up again this year by anyone’s account on Congressional predictions. It’s would be easy to dismiss the findings out of hand, but it’s worth noting that the polls that downplay firearm ownership in America are admitting, “Americans’ appetite for gun control is the lowest it has been since 2016.”

On the issue of DEFUNDING Police: Don’t let the Rhetoric Fool YOU!

It is a challenge to maintain a straight face and read the statement by Pittsburgh Mayor Peduto below! “This is not anti-police. This is anti-police brutality and what we can do in order to train, recruit, promote, discipline and all the other facets of policing to make sure everyday a police officer puts on their uniform, they know they are a part of a very special unit,” Peduto told Channel 11.

One has to wonder exactly what kind of training these people from this task force have in dealing with situations on the street that threaten the safety and lives of citizens and the officers charged with enforcing the law!

From the WPXI article at the link above:

The co-chair of the task force said the group feels things like rubber bullets and tear gas are “not in the best interest of the community.

“There are other ways to deescalate and other ways of disperse. Look at those first and we are not taking the use of those objects off the table. We are asking for the experts to come in and let us know what is best, how best to use them, to have the best policy,” said Valerie McDonald Roberts.

In response, the Fraternal Order of Police blasted the report, saying they were never included in discussions. The agency sent Channel 11 a statement, reading in part:

“The FOP finds the report, and comments made by the Pittsburgh Community Taskforce for Police Reform (PCTPR) report troubling. The report, generated in response to protests that illegitimately generalize our members and shut down businesses, seeks to undermine the rights of union members via reform. The comments made from the Mayor’s office, and the PCTPR does not show neutrality or open-mindedness. It seems to be divisive and agenda driven.”

In our view the fraternal order of police is right on the money with this analysis of this report and the direction for Pittsburgh as it moves forward. Citizen and officer safety are going to be put at risk all the while trying to conform to some utopian viewpoint without any connection to reality!

So we invite you to Read the Report for Yourself and YOU Decide:

In the end, any consequences that arise from this utopian viewpoint will not fall on the shoulders of those responsible for implementing this silliness because of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity that shields government from making these kinds of stupid mistakes! You may wonder why anyone not living in Pittsburgh should be concerned about this. If this kind of a concept takes root in Pittsburgh then it is very likely that it may filter down to other second-class and third-class cities throughout Pennsylvania! This is why you should be cognizant of the dangers of these kinds of movements!

Spotlight on Anti-Gun PA Legislators: Rep. Michael Driscoll’s Cluelessness on Gun Laws

We received the message below a couple of days ago from an FOAC member – John – who is shocked that a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives could introduce a Bill based on a position that is so clueless about Pennsylvania’s gun laws as to think that (from the memo for this legislation) “Under current law, an individual can have multiple prior felony convictions for illegally carrying a concealed firearm without a concealed-carry permit and still be eligible to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell, and/or transfer firearms. This leads to situations where violent criminals with multiple prior convictions for illegally carrying a firearm without a permit are still otherwise eligible to possess a firearm.”


"If you ever wondered if the Phillycrats pander to their base, I encourage you to look at HB2963

Then read the bill at, line 18.

I attempted to reach out to Representative Michael Driscoll in order to save him the embarrassment of his bill. By now, anybody who understands the disqualifiers for carrying a firearm knows that ONE felony conviction pretty much disqualifies you for life from buying, possessing, carrying a firearm.

Since Representative Driscoll feels it is unnecessary to respond to my e-mail and follow up phone call, I'm calling him out on social media. What in the world was he thinking? Did he write this bill, or is this yet another Bloomberg/Soros misfire (pun intended)?

Am I alone, or does anyone else think this poorly worded bill barely survived being run through the printing press? The anti-gunners must be awfully desperate to introduce this so late in the session. I predict it will never even come up in front of the Judiciary Committee, but please be aware that efforts to question your lawful right to keep and bear arms are unceasing.

Beyond that, I don't appreciate being ignored.


(Ed. Note, we corrected the links in John’s message but have not changed it otherwise. As you can see Rep. Driscoll did not answer John’s questions and that appears to be deliberate.)

Overall Status of 2nd Amendment Legislation Filed to Date in PA and the US:

2019-2020 Session PA State Bills (updated)

  • Pro-Gun Bills: 56
  • Anti-Gun Bills: 89

2019-2020 Session Federal Bills (updated)

  • Pro-Gun Bills: 68
  • Anti-Gun Bills: 152

Media Corruption and Lies: The Trace / Faux (FAKE) News

The Trace brands itself as an “independent non-partisan, non-profit news site,” but that’s hardly truthful. An exclusive report by Guns America Digest shows 70 percent of The Trace’s budget comes from Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and Everytown’s president John Feinblatt is listed as The Trace’s chief officer.

They’re now proffering a White House playbook full of executive actions, overreach, and ineffective attempts to reduce criminal misuse of firearms.

Upcoming Events: FOAC’s Annual Christmas Holiday Party

It's the annual Merry and Happy party!  We will meet in the large room at Al's Cafe (not the upstairs room we've been in the last few years) for lunch and celebration.

The cost is $30 per person and reservations must be made with Treasurer Danielle by December 5, no exceptions!

We are happy to be collecting donations for Toys for Tots again this year with James Roman.  Don't forget to bring your unwrapped donation item if you can.

Click here to get the Invite:

Law Enforcement on Guns: Biden’s gun agenda could hit AR-15 owners with $3.6 billion in taxes – on weapons they already own

If Joe Biden defeats President Trump next month, the possibility…no the probability exists that gun owners will see the largest gun grab in history, and to add injury to insult, will be forced to pay for it.

Law Enforcement Today has learned that under Sleepy Joe’s proposed gun control policies, every AR-15 rifle in the country would be required to be registered pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Without any kind of a carve-out, it would mandate that every American who owns an AR-15 would be required to pay a $200 tax for each one they own.

Politician’s Quote to Remember: New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. on Prosecuting Trump and Enablers

“Tonight I’m calling for the eventual prosecution of donald trump [sic] and his enablers for their many crimes against the United States,” New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. tweeted Tuesday. His demand was accompanied by a screenshot for an official press release.

“Donald Trump and members of his administration have committed innumerable crimes against the United States,” Pascrell charges, without defining any beyond generalized smears and propaganda allegations leading up to what he’s really saying:

“He has engaged in treachery, in treason.”

The punishment for treason, defined by the law, by the way, and not by an obnoxious collectivist New Jersey politician, is death. Pascrell, by proclaiming him guilty just because he says so, wants Donald Trump to be executed by agents of a Democrat regime, whether it is authorized by United States Code or not.

Founding Father’s Statement on Freedom: Thomas Paine (1776)

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Closing Thoughts: How Politics Works (with a little humor)

I told my son, "you will marry the girl I choose.   
He said, "no."

I told him, "she is Bill Gates' daughter.   
He said, "yes."

I called Bill Gates and said, "I want your daughter to marry my son.

Bill Gates said, "no."

I told Bill Gates, "my son is the CEO of the World Bank.   
Bill Gates said, "OK."

I called the Chairman of the World Bank and asked him to make my son the CEO.   

He said, "no."

I told him, "my son is Bill Gates' son-in-law.    He said, "OK."

And that's exactly how politics works.

And thus, began the practice of hiring inept people to work in influential positions of government.  This practice is unbroken to this day.


We wish you a great weekend and stay safe!

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President