Firearms Owners Against
Crime
Gun Ban Truths:
E-Newsletter & FOAC
Meeting Notice
December 9, 2007
Meeting Agenda Issues:
Invited Guest Speakers:
· None
7.1 Presentation of the past month’s report
8.1
None
9.0 NEW BUSINESS
9.1
9.2
Judiciary
Committee Hearings (Past, Present and Future)
9.2.1
Castle
Doctrine Legislation (HB 641)
9.2.2
PICS
Reform Legislation (HB 1235)
9.2.3
Winter
Anti-Gun Offensive Plans
9.3
Pro-Gun
Agenda Developments
9.4
Political
Events Review and Summary
9.5
2008
Banquet Plans
9.6
Membership
committee developments
Federal issues:
9.7
HR 1022,
2640 & Public Debate / Issues
**Upcoming Gun
Show: January 19th
& 20th (PGCA – To Be Held In
For more information on FOAC
efforts to ‘Protect YOUR Rights’, the most current voter’s guides, donating
to or becoming a member of FOAC please click on this link: http://www.foac-pac.org/
FOAC - 2008 Meeting
Schedule
Jan 13, 2nd Sunday, Feb 10, 2nd Sunday, Mar 9, 2nd Sunday, Apr
13, 2nd Sunday, May 4, 1st
Sunday, Jun 8, 2nd Sunday, Jul 13,
2nd Sunday, Aug 10, 2nd Sunday, Sep 14, 2nd Sunday, Oct 12, 2nd Sunday, Nov 2, 1st Sunday, Dec 14, 2nd Sunday
**Time of Meeting: 10:00 AM
**Location:
****Coffee and Donuts will be
provided
***Primary Election – Apr. 22
***General Election -- Nov. 4
Governor
Rendell and Legislative Black Caucus (Phila.) Declare WAR
on PA Gun Owners!!!!!
The setbacks suffered by Ed Rendell before the Judiciary Committee on November 20 has done little to derail the gun-control juggernaut he continues to advance to the legislature and the media in his misguided attempts to undermine the freedoms of law-abiding Pennsylvanians to cover up for the failure of his administration to adequately deal with violent crime.
On December 5th 16
members of the general assembly’s Black Caucus walked off the House floor
before a vote on a new open records Bill was to be taken as a protest of the
legislature’s lack of action on gun control bills. They have threatened to boycott anything else
until they get their petulant childish viewpoints addressed in what can only be
described as an act of bullying or political terrorism. We should also not be naïve in understanding
that our governor, Ed Rendell, is playing a substantial part in the drama that
is unfolding in
This coming Monday, December 10, Ed
Rendell once again upped the ante on the gun control debate by organizing a
demonstration of support from anti-gun mayors from a small group of cities who
are experiencing an upsurge in violent crime.
Surprisingly, he is coordinating this with a number of anti-gun groups
throughout
It’s clear that gun owners of
We have made every effort to keep gun owners aware of the developments as they occur and to provide them with the means with which to get involved and to contact legislators. We will continue this effort as well as our support for legislators who respect our freedoms and our heritage.
How ironic it is that we are
suffering this kind of onerous assault just as the United States Supreme Court
has agreed to hear arguments on the
Please stay tuned as this is certainly only the beginning of one of our darkest hours in history!
Courtesy:
**Alert** --- Castle Doctrine Legislation
Comes to the PA House Judiciary Committee – December 11th!!!
The "Castle Doctrine" legislation, House Bill 641, introduced by Rep. Cappelli (R-83rd District), will be heard this coming week in the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, December 11th.
Please watch for the alert on this tomorrow from the ACSL and PSA!
Courtesy:
*Federal Legislative Update: H.R. 1022 Gun Owners Nightmare
H.R.
1022 was recently introduced in Congress by rabid anti-gunners Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy (D-N.Y) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) to "Reauthorize the
assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
This
bill is a wish-list of anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment proposals...AND
IT NOW HAS FIFTY-NINE CO-SPONSORS IN THE
It
is not about self-defense. It is not about stopping criminals or reducing
crime. H.R. 1022 has only one purpose
- Eliminate the availability of entire classes of popular, legal
firearms.
The
gun ban extremists are promoting this bill as a popular, needed measure that
their "polls" show even law-abiding gun owners support...
The
debate over this bill is growing more intense every day. The original
Now
in a non-Presidential election year, it's clear that the anti-gun extremists
will do or say anything to turn H.R. 1022 and the fight over
reauthorization and expansion of the
So
get ready for a non-stop barrage of anti-gun activists, the
politicians who support their cause and biased media elite, loudly
beating the drum for passage of H.R. 1022!
H.R. 1022 is not just a reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton/Gore ban on a handful of so-called assault weapons and large
capacity gun magazines.
·
H.R. 1022 creates a new, permanent gun ban and it includes a huge increase in the number and
types of firearms banned.
·
It bans 65 named guns (the
·
H.R. 1022 will permanently ban
sales of ALL semi-automatic shotguns used all across the country by law-abiding
citizens for hunting, skeet, sporting clays and self defense.
·
This terrible legislation would also ban sales of three centerfire
rifles most commonly used in target shooting competitions, the AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."
·
And H.R.
1022 bans any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle a sitting Attorney General would
arbitrarily find to be "not particularly suitable for sporting purposes."
These are just a few of the
provisions of H.R. 1022 that would destroy the Second Amendment rights of
millions of law-abiding gun owners today, while effectively wiping out the
rights of future generations as it causes firearms to become less and less
available and affordable.
If you would like to read the
entire bill for yourself, go to www.thomas.loc.gov on the Internet and type
in "H.R. 1022" as the bill number to search for. We think you will be
shocked by the scope of this gun grab proposal.
Passage of H.R. 1022 would
certainly be the beginning of the end of your Second Amendment rights - and a
huge step towards a total ban of all firearms!
Remember - There are people working, organizing, raising
money, lobbying politicians and writing legislation at the state and federal
level with the single intent of banning your guns and making you part of the
last generation of American gun owners.
Courtesy:
Rendell's Full Court
Press Falls Short in PA Committee
by Joseph P. Tartaro Executive Editor
Six
Democrats, mostly from gun-rights strongholds in the southwest, crossed party
lines to defeat the two bills. Two Republicans from the
National
Rifle Association lobbyist John Hohenwater said the
votes clearly showed committee members had no appetite to restrict gun rights
in an attempt to solve
"I
think that members of the committee and the legislature as a whole do not want
to move in the direction of placing restriction on firearms to address crime
in
But
Rendell, with a dozen uniformed police officers from
"Those
who argue that violence is a
"It's
time for us to stand up and say, `Enough,' "the governor added, pounding
his fist on the table.
Line
Holds
But
the line against gun control held firm. With no debate, the Democrat-controlled
committee defeated HB-22, a bill to limit most handgun purchases to one per
month, 12-17, and HB-18, a bill to empower local governments to enact guncontrol laws, 10-19.
The
committee tabled HB-29, a bill that would have required owners to report lost
or stolen guns promptly, for possible future amendments, by a vote of 17-12.
The
ACSL/PSA has issued an alert on Nov. 15 that included the list of organizations
opposed and the email addresses of all committee members. The following
morning, one committee member reported that in just over an hour he received
more than 400 emails encouraging the defeat of the three bills. Another said
that he got so many email addresses that his blackberry sounded like a
machinegun.
"We
are very grateful for the cooperation of every person who took part in this
event," said Schneider and Stolfer. "We only ask for help when
legislative leaders ignore us and decide to move bad legislation over our
objections. The fact that so many individuals quickly acted upon the
information that we provided, proved to legislators that they are concerned and
will act. Even Committee Chairman (Thomas) Caltagirone (D) commented on the
professional demeanor of the gunowners who were present during the hearing.
"We
are also very grateful to the majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee
who voted for freedom," said Schneider and Stolfer.
GOP
Pleased Republican Party of
Pennsylvania Chairman Robert A. Gleason Jr. announced his delight that the
House Judiciary Committee voted against Rendell's measure.
“To
borrow the governor's word, Rendell's anti-gun bills got ‘schlumped,’
” said Gleason. “Gov. Rendell's proposed gun restrictions did nothing to
address the real issues facing the city,” Gleason continued.
“If
the governor was really concerned with curbing violence in the city of
Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's
Gun-Free-Zone Status
Thursday
, December 06, 2007
By John R.
Lott, Jr.
The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in
A Google news search using the
phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories
worldwide for the last day. From
But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.
Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?
Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.
The same was true for the attack at
the Trolley Square Mall in
Yet even then, the
officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the
convoluted
There are plenty of cases every
year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings
every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in
When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.
Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?
Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was
following
No wonder, as the bill being
debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It
is quite a coincidence that he attacked the
Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.
People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.
All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.
In recent years, similar attacks
have occurred across the world, including in
The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.
The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.
John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece
draws, and a senior research scholar at the
SCOTUS
Set To Decide Pure Gun Right Case
by Dave Workman Senior Editor
Within minutes of the announcement by the Supreme Court on Nov. 20 that it will hear the appeal in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller-the case that could provide a landmark ruling that defines the Second Amendment as an individual right-the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sent out an urgent appeal for $50,000 in contributions.
The money, said the Brady Campaign,
would go directly to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, "to protect
"If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision," the appeal lamented, "gun laws everywhere could be at risk."
The collective ho-hum reaction from the firearms civil rights community to the alarmist appeal was pretty much, "So, what's your point?"
Gun rights leaders at the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAP) are encouraged that the Heller case-renamed from Parker v. District of Columbia when only one of the original plaintiffs, Dick Heller, was given standing by the court-will provide a watershed decision in the middle of the 2008 presidential and congressional campaign season. It will put gun rights at center stage and make the right to keep and bear arms perhaps the critical issue as the nation elects a new president and new Congress.
Both sides are nervous, but NRA Executive Vice' President Wayne LaPierre and SAF founder Alan Gottlieb are, perhaps, considerably more confident of a favorable outcome than the gun control lobby.
LaPierre told Gun Week that he believes the high court ruling, due out next June after a scheduled March hearing and oral arguments, "will put the entire ruling political class in this country on the spot."
"The American public will not be denied this freedom," he stated. "Forty-four states have an individual right written into their state constitutions. If the Supreme Court, by some torturous measure, delivers some government right interpretation, we would immediately look to the states to call a constitutional convention.
"The Second Amendment is self-evident," LaPierre continued. "The American public knows it's about human worth, self-destiny and freedom."
He acknowledged that an affirmative ruling that upholds the individual right to keep and bear arms will not put the gun control lobby out of business, but added, "They certainly won't be able to argue that it's not an individual right under constitution anymore."
Gottlieb was equally confident of the eventual outcome.
"We are confident that the high court will rule that the Second Amendment affirms and protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms," Gottlieb said. "Previous Supreme Court rulings dating back more than a century have consistently referred to the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right, but the case of District of Columbia v, Heller focuses on that issue, and we expect the court to settle the issue once and for all."
Gottlieb suggested that the Heller
ruling might be very narrow in its scope, only holding that the
"An affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court will probably not be the death knell for the extremist citizen disarmament movement," Gottlieb said, "but it will properly cripple their campaign to destroy an important civil right, the one that protects all of our other rights. The insidious effort to strip American citizens of their firearms rights, while at the same time permanently harming public safety must end.
"The
Attorney Alan Gura, one of the trio of lawyers representing the plaintiff, confirmed to Gun Week that he will present the arguments before the high court. It will be his first appearance before the ninemember panel, and he is looking forward to presenting his case.
"We're going to establish once and for all that the Second Amendment means what
it
says," Gura stated. "It is the beginning of
the end for the collectivist nonsense." He was alluding to the argument
that the Second Amendment only protects a socalled
"collectivist right" of the states to form militias. This
interpretation has become popular with gun control activists who base their
beliefs on the 1939 Supreme Court ruling in US v. Miller.
Gottlieb's prediction about a narrow ruling could be well-founded, considering the narrow scope of the question the court agreed to consider. In announcing that it would accept the appeal, the court said:
"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
However, experts and armchair analysts immediately began trying to determine whether the court already sent a signal of sorts how it will decide this case because this carefully-worded question appears to suggest that the court already considers the Second Amendment protective of an individual right. The question the justices will consider suggests further that they will only look at whether the District's handgun ban violates this individual right if someone is not part of a militia.
The March federal appeals court ruling that led to this constitutional confrontation was written by District of Columbia Appeals Court Senior Judge Laurence Silberman. In his ruling, which holds that
the Amendment protects an individual right beyond service in a militia, Silberman noted that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to "reasonable" regulation. That might include licensing and/ or registration, but could not include a ban.
But upholding an individual right
interpretation is really what the gun rights community is looking for, as it
would provide a launching pad for striking down similar bans in
Gura has previously suggested to Gun Week that this would be the likely scenario if the District gun ban is struck down. It marks the first case in history in which a gun law has been declared unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds by a federal court. The Silverman ruling sent a shock wave through the gun control lobby, causing something of a crisis for gun control activists who, while having long contended that they support private gun ownership, suddenly began loudly arguing that Silberman's ruling tried to undo the historic precedent established by the Miller ruling.
Gottlieb, LaPierre and others have consistently contended that the anti-gun lobby has deliberately misrepresented the 1939 Miller ruling for many years.
Perhaps the best summation on that subject came from Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
"The firearms industry looks
forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the
Second Amendment is not an individual right," said Keane. "This
intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control
advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil
right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports
shooting and other lawful purposes." The New GUN WEEK,
December 15, 2007
After picking a legal fight with
gun dealers down South, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg could soon come under
fire in courtrooms in
Two recent court rulings-the latest from South Carolina on Nov. 19- “suggest that Bloomberg may want to reserve a few days on his calendar next year in case he is called to face a jury over allegations that he defamed two gun dealers by speaking ill of them in the press," The Sun observed.
"He's going to get a reception that's very different than the one he gets from his handpicked audiences across the country," said Bob Barr, a former congressman who is one of two attorneys suing Bloomberg on behalf of a gun dealer in Smyrna, GA. "Jurors here are not likely to believe in gun control or appreciate some outsider coming into their jurisdiction and telling their businesses how to operate."
The two gun dealers filed suits
after the mayor sued them and several other gun dealers in five states who, he
claimed, had sold many of the firearms that police officers were recovering
from crimes in
Two of the accused shops-Mickalis Pawn Shop in
Earlier, a
The decision paves the way for a
trial. If the case does go to a jury, as Mickalis's
attorney, Sonaly Hendricks, said would happen, a
fraction of the mayor's personal fortune and city dollars will be on the line,
The Sun reported. The latest ruling, by Judge Roger Young of the state's
circuit court in
"Defendants cite no statutes or case law giving a mayor from the state of New York the power or authority to administer, regulate, or enforce federal law with respect to federal firearms licensees located in South Carolina or to investigate compliance with those laws outside of his own borders," Young wrote.
"Reasonable minds could differ as to whether Defendants' conduct reaches the threshold requirement of extreme and outrageous behavior necessary to support the Plaintiff's claim," the judge wrote.
Neither the
by Joseph P.
Tartaro, Gun Week Executive Editor
Finland's
gun laws are attracting criticism around the world after an 18-year-old student
shot and killed six other students, a school nurse and the headmistress, and
wounded several others with a .22-caliber pistol Nov. 7 at Jokela
High School in Tuusula, Finland, about 30 miles north
of Helsinki.
The
student, identified as Pekka-Eric Auvinen,
reloaded many times and also reportedly tried to set a fire on the second
floor of the school before shooting himself in the head. He later died in a
hospital.
There
were almost immediate calls for
Earlier,
the Finnish government had resisted calls for it to amend its gun laws to
conform to those adopted by the European Union (EU) saying because of the
county's high proportion of hunters and low crime rate,
there was little need for harsher gun regulations. However, following the
school shooting, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said that perception might change.
About
56 of every 100 Finns own a gun, according to a study by the