Volume 8, No. 1 www.foac-pac.org January 8, 2008
Firearms Owners Against
Crime
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great
Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most
effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but
weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting
the militia. George Mason (1725-1792), speech in the
Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
E-Newsletter & FOAC
Meeting Notice
January 13, 2008
Meeting Agenda Issues:
Invited Guest Speakers: **None
9.0 NEW BUSINESS
9.1
9.2
Questionnaire
Development Plans
9.3
Judiciary
Committee Forecast on Gun Control
9.3.1
Castle
Doctrine Legislation (HB 641)
9.3.2
PICS
Reform Legislation (HB 1235) [awaiting vote in Senate]
9.3.3
Anti-Gun
Group Developments
9.4
Pro-Gun
Agenda Developments
9.5
Political
Events Review and Summary
9.6
2008
Banquet Plan Developments
9.7
Membership
committee developments
9.8
Officer
Elections
Federal issues:
9.9
Heller
v. D.C. Court Case Update & Epic Nature of possible outcome
9.10
HR 1022,
2640 & Public Debate / Issues
Events:
**Upcoming Gun Show: January 19th & 20th
(PGCA – To Be Held In
**Upcoming Sport Show: February 13th – 17th (ExpoMart 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
Concealed
Carry Permit Issuance Problems Growing in PA
Despite a
written guarantee from the Allegheny County Sheriffs’ office from several years
ago regarding notification of expiration and early renewals, this office has
recently been refusing to allow ‘early renewals’ of Licenses to Carry Firearms.
We have also
been receiving complaints about spotty notices being sent out for renewals as
well.
We are currently
exploring the reasoning behind these position changes and our options for
addressing them. Early indications are
that the PA State Police have adopted regulations that ‘prohibit’ early
renewals by Sheriffs in contravention of Section 6109 in the Uniform Firearms
Act.
We will have
a more in depth report on this next month. (Courtesy
ACSL-www.acslpa.org)
**Messages Below Were Posted on a Statewide Gun Owners Forum
(PAFOA-www.pafoa.org):
Small Victory and
One of my former trainees lives
out-of-state, but has family in
I went to the Sheriff's office to
file an administrative appeal. Nobody there had a clue what I was talking
about. In fact, I was told my client was "not denied" - they just
refused to issue his renewal because "you have to live in
I finally wrung a "denial appeal form" out of them, which is one page. It has about six inches of blah blah blah, and about two inches of space to explain why one is appealing. I threw that away, and send a letter to the Solicitor for the Sheriff's Department, laying out the law establishing the right of out-of-state residents to obtain a permit here, and under what conditions.
Lo, and behold, the Solicitor has now advised me he has recommended the staff at the Sheriff's office be reversed, and that my client's LTCC be renewed. The Sheriff now understands the requirements of the law. The total cost was well under $1,000.
There are many ways to fight. Some work well, some not so well.
Biting the bullet and going through the legal system works much better than mf'ing the cops or sitting on the porch and barking.
Quote:
|
Originally
Posted by elston32 However,
the fact that an individual who live out-of-state has to hire a professional
to inform local law enforcement in-state law they should already know is
really annoying and an unreasonable burden. |
Yes,
it is. But it is much easier than having to choose between knuckling under or risking your life.
Too
many people use the fact the system is not perfect (slow, expensive, stacked in
favor or monied interests, sometimes gives bad
results) as an excuse to do nothing . . . nothing, that is, but whine or
bluster.
There
will always be somebody (be it individual official or group) who will try to
dominate. It may be unfortuante, but, in life,
"always the big fish eats the little fish." The question is not
whether it should happen, because it will. The question is how
one can resist.
I
think it is important to recognize that one of the great things about the
United States is we can resist government excess or abuse without having
to put it all on the line.
This
is why I am so contemptuous of those who proclaim: "They can have my gun
when they pry my dead, cold hands from around it!* [* So long as I don't have
to spend any money, miss any work, or risk getting my name on a list.]"
Legal means of resistance are at hand, but these guys always have a reason not
to put themselves out. They disregard a precious right to which we were all born
(at the expense of those who went before us) simply because it is inconvenient.
Then they attempt to cover thier sloth, selfishness
and/or cowardice with a bumper-sticker slogan.
I
feel very fortunate that it is not necessary for things to come to a choice
between physical resistance or subjugation. I am
grateful for this right in part because I know those who
always have a reason not to put themselves out to defend thier
rights in court or take a day off to attend a protest will ever risk
their lives to help anyone, even themselves.
My
client does not appear to have ever had a moment's doubt. It was just a matter
of fact that he was going to fight. He was not happy, but he was not confused
about what needed to be done.
If
10% of gun owners were like him, we would not have the problems we have.
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/14278-small-victory-allegheny-county.html
I called 3 weeks ago and asked the status of my application for a LTCCF, was told it was in progress, its been 55 days so far and I have since found this forum and I’ve been up all night reading. I called back today and was greeted by a very nasty woman who said she could not check my status over the phone, I continued to ask how long the process takes and was told 45 business days, I told her the UFA of PA says that a decision must be made within 45 days, not 45 business days, and I was told "that law does not apply to this county". In shock I asked if the AG felt the same way she did and I was told to "contact whom ever I felt necessary to contact" http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/12780-just-got-off-phone-delco-sheriffs-office.html
Registration
of Firearms
(PSP Record of
Issues/Problems—
BY PRED - original poster
#1 --I live
just inside the city limits, and if you guys remember the police shooting at
the Duncan Donuts,,,, That was about 1 mile from my house, About 2 days later I
arrived home from work to find 6, Yes 6 ATF agents waiting for me, They asked
to see all my guns, I asked if this was an AFT convention outside my house, and
then asked if they had a warrant, NO they didnt, So I
asked them why they were here, Response was the cop got shot with a 9mm, and I
owned one,, I bought it about 1 year ago,,, I showed the crowd of ATF The one
they asked to see, It was still in box,,,,
For me to carry in the open would be insane in this area, I would get to know
all the police and maybe the inside of their cars,,
What is it like out there in the country??
PB
#17 --I feel as though I am glad to see that they
are looking/canvassing the surrounding areas to see if the ones who have bought
a 9mm still have it in their position, I am happy to comply with that,
therefore I had no issue showing them what they were looking for, But they had
to ask, I don’t however it is their right to come into my house and inventory
my firearms, I wasn’t about to allow that, They even said as not to excite the
neighbors if 2 of them could come in with me, HOW ABOUT the 4 outside all
carrying exposed loitering in my drive exciting the neighbors?
After I told them that I would get what they were looking for, I told them I
was carrying at that point of time, I asked if they would prefer me to unload
it, They didn’t mind me carrying concealed, and didn't ask to see what I was
carrying, Or to see my CC permit, I guess they already knew I had one,
I did get the cards of two of them, And have them in my safe now, They were
pleasant and courteous throughout te whole thing, I
told them that with what happened to the officer, and all the helicopters
flying about all night long, and me with a 1/3 acre wooded back yard that
backed up to some railroad tracks that I WILL be armed when in the yard day or
night,,,,,,,,,
It was all okay, And I am glad to help with showing them what they wanted to see,
But keep this in mind----- Aren’t the records supposed to be purged every 30
days? How did they know what I had a year later? They are not supposed to!
So OC would be a big waste of time here, For me and
the police, Plus there would be so many frightened people.
I still carry each day,
The AFT was good to me, and there was also a Philly violent crimes person with
them, I have his name and # too!
It's a tough place here, Looking to move to Sullivan
county someday!
PB
#43--When I said
they were good to me, It was in reference to their attitude and composure,,, Hasseling me, Well It's their
job to have 6 guys with Glocks? on
their waists gathering in my driveway and asking to come inside,,
They even went to the extent to park all the way down the end of my street
which is one way in their unmarked cars.
I know that they had no thoughts that it was me,,, But the first Q to see
everything I owned by 6 of them is a bit unraveling,, It is all over and done
with now, Crime will still happen, and the 9mm will still be one of the most
popular calipers, and The AFT will still come to peoples houses, I ndont they should fish as they were trying to do, But I
will show them a particular item if they ask for a particular item to help in
an investigation.
If I had sent them off with out showing them the one,,, and demanded a search
warrant, They would have been back with 20 of their friends and a search
warrant for sure, Then It would have really been a bad/horrible experience for
me,
So I figure that sometimes it's better to roll over just a bit, Than to piss em off, and roll over a whole lot, And get your house
searched thoroughly.
Has this ever happened to anyone else?
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/14121-oc-philly-atf-hasseling-me.html
Judge says no law broken when
man carried firearm into polling place
By DON AINES
chambersburg@herald-mail.com
CHAMBERSBURG, Pa. - Franklin County Judge John R. Walker followed the law Tuesday in returning a concealed weapons permit to Gregory Rotz, but the judge said he would prefer the state ban firearms from polling places.
"Personally, I'm going to contact my legislator and see if they can write a law because, if you have people walking around voting places with firearms, you are beginning to look like a Third World country down in Venezuela or somewhere," the judge said after ordering the return to Rotz of the permit, which had been revoked by former Sheriff Robert Wollyung.
During a brief hearing,
"Give it to him now, Mr.
Redding,"
Many of the approximately 50 people
in the courtroom, mostly Second Amendment rights supporters, applauded as
Approximately 6,000 people have
concealed weapons permits in
Carrying a weapon in a vehicle is considered concealing it, which is one reason many people get the permits, Anthony said.
Wollyung
ordered the permit revoked after Rotz, 36, showed up at the
"I went to the polling place to vote, and I had my firearm with me as I do everyday," Rotz said after winning his appeal. A constable at the center confronted him and delayed his voting until county officials told the constable "that it was not illegal for me to take my firearm into the polling place," Rotz said.
"He had it in plain view, the people that were at the polls were scared ... I asked him to step outside," said Constable Gerald Spielman, who was at the courthouse Tuesday. "I asked him to step outside and I checked with the courthouse," Spielman said.
"I had no choice but to let him go into vote" once he learned there was no law forbidding firearms in a polling place.
Rotz said the Friday after the election, he received the first of two letters, as required by law, notifying him of the revocation.
The hearing attracted people from
across
"I don't believe in open
carry. I think it's a tactical disadvantage" to allow others to know you
are armed, said Douglas Boldt of
"He has a God-given right to protect himself," said Boldt, who left his Heckler & Koch P7M8 in his vehicle.
"I support Mr. Greg Rotz.
Enforce the law, not personal opinion" read the badges of many of those
who attended. There were men from
If a person can lose a concealed weapon permit without having broken a law, he said, "then we've got a problem."
A number of state and borough police officers were in the courtroom, some not in uniform, though it was unclear whether they were attending as citizens or to bolster security. There were four or five deputies at a time in the courtroom.
"I would like to sincerely commend Mr. Rotz's supporters for their professionalism and cooperation with my office," Anthony said. A device called an unloading station was set up outside the building and the weapons were checked in at a table outside Anthony's office. The supporters then re-entered the building through another entrance to go through the metal detector.
Rotz's supporters headed off to a restaurant after the ruling, but Boldt suggested they also go to a local range.
"Who wants to go shooting?" he said.
Philly Police Faulted for
Shootings
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester
Johnson is seen at a news conference in Philadelphia, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008.
Johnson ends a tenure marked by concerns about violent crime and shootings by
police, including a police shooting New Year's Eve that left four people inside
a home, including a child, wounded.
For
the second year in a row, city officials are being asked how police officers
responding to celebratory New Year's Eve gunfire ended up shooting innocent
bystanders.
This
year, police chasing an armed reveler shot into a house filled with partygoers,
leaving one man in a coma, a second wounded and a 9-year-old boy with a graze
wound to the chest.
A
year ago, police fatally shot a man in the back of the head as he tried to flee
when neighbors started shooting guns into the air.
The
latest shootings came as Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson ends a six-year
tenure marked by public concern about gun violence and the police response to
it.
Johnson
has repeatedly been asked to answer questions about the department's use of
deadly force, including two months ago when officers killed a distraught
teenager wielding a clothes iron. City police fatally shot 16 people in 2007
and 20 the previous year.
"It
seems that there's too much of a policy to shoot first and worry about the
outcome later," said Bruce Ginsburg, an attorney representing two of the
shooting victims. "It puts everybody in the city in danger."
Johnson,
who retires Friday after 43 years with the department, defended his officers
while promising an investigation of the New Year's Eve shootings.
"It's
hard for you to say when an officer has a gun pointed at him, is he reacting
too fast? We had one (officer) killed, we had six others who were shot"
this year, he said Thursday at his final news conference.
Johnson's
replacement, Charles Ramsey, has pledged to address the number of police
shootings. Ramsey has noted that in his tenure as police chief of
The
party's host, Clinton Rogers, 30, told reporters that bullets started flying
through the front door at him, friends and relatives just after midnight.
Parents jumped in front of their children and two men who were shot ran
upstairs, trailing blood.
The
spray of bullets left Abebe Isaac, 33, in a medically
induced coma after he was shot in the face. Michael Johnson, 32, remains stable
after being shot in the side. Nyger Page, 9, was
treated and released after suffering the graze wound.
Ginsburg
represents Page's family and also that of Bryan Jones, who was shot to death by
police as 2007 arrived.
Jones,
20, had set out on foot in the waning moments of 2006 to retrieve a young
nephew from a party and was fleeing gunfire when he was shot.
Police
have said officers responding to a report of gunfire were fired at by people on
a porch and that an officer fired at Jones when he saw him reaching for his
waistband. Jones, however, had no weapon and no criminal history, Ginsburg
said.
"Nothing
was learned about the unnecessary death of a young man last year," he
said.
Ginsburg
plans to file a wrongful death suit on behalf of Jones' family.
Jan
4, 2008 By MARYCLAIRE DALE, AP
http://www.examiner.com/a-1138099~Philadelphia_police_again_faulted_for_collateral_damage.html
Mall, church
shootings bring criticism of `gun free zones'
Reaction to last month's shootings
at the Westroads Mall in
Pro-gun researcher and oft-published author John Lott weighed in, as did Vin Suprynowicz with the Las Vegas Review Journal, and so did Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb and Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman. Lott, writing on the Fox News website, noted that the Omaha Mall shooting was the subject of 2,794 stories worldwide.
Yet a critical fact was not covered, he lamented: These shootings happened in so-called gun free zones.
"Despite the lack of news coverage," Lott wrote, "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."
Not known for pulling any punches in his criticism of the bias in news reports about firearms and self-defense, Lott demanded to know, "When will part of the media coverage on these multiple victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred?"
He noted that the press, while reporting on whether teachers can have firearms at school and doing spot reports on a growing movement by university and college students who want to carry defensive handguns legally on campus, "the media haven't started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.
"Surely," Lott observed, "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 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?”
Lott blasted the media for not specifically pointing to the signs at the Westroads Mall that said guns are prohibited on the premises. And he spared no criticism for anti-gunners, who have lobbied and labored to create "gun free zone" restrictions, and for businesses that succumbed to the pressure.
"If a killer were stalking your family," Lott noted, "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." Likewise, the sharp-tongued Suprynowicz unloaded on the "gun free zone" philosophy in a Dec. 16 column that was a verbal ear-burner. Suggesting that employers or business owners, or officials ought to be held legally liable for injuries or fatalities if they post buildings under their control off limits to defensive handguns, Suprynowicz delivered a blistering assessment of the downside of gun-free zones.
"If you frequent public buildings or work for an employer who bars you from carrying your otherwise legal self-defense weapon" he suggested, "consider advising your loved ones in writing that-in the event you should die under circumstances where you could have saved yourself and others with your handgun you want the proprietor sued personally.
"Guns save lives," he said. "Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn't the individuals who ban self-defense-not the victimized taxpayers-pay the price?"
Suprynowicz acknowledged that private property owners have a right to ban firearms on their property. However, he stressed that government agencies should make it clear to the managers of buildings that are open to the public "that they will not be shielded from the financial repercussions should employees or customers die under circumstances where they could otherwise have defended themselves and others with their own firearms."
Gottlieb and Workman came out
swinging with back-to-back opinion pieces that followed both the
Springs, the
latter which ended abruptly when an armed private citizen acting as a volunteer
security guard at the
After
"If there is a true outrage
(about
The pair collaborated last year on the fast-selling America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age, which roared to the top of the charts on Amazon.com and sold out its first printing in 39 days. The timing of the shootings was incredibly coincidental with release of the book, which shreds the notion that "gun free zones" are safe.
In their Op-Ed about the
A week later, they were back in
circulation again with an opinion piece analyzing the
"We must stop this `victim disarmament' insanity in our work places, shopping malls and even our churches," they contended. "If necessary, we should pass legislation at the state and federal level that shields armed citizens from criminal and civil liability when lawfully acting in defense of themselves and others during attacks in public places.
"This is America," they concluded, "where self-reliance should be nurtured, not neutered, and where the heroism exhibited by (the armed citizen in the New Life Church incident) Jeanne Assam should stand as a warning that citizens are tired of being told to cower in fear and ‘wait for help.’ We will rise to the occasion and fight back.”
The New GUN WEEK,
January 15, 2008
*Federal Legislative Update:
DC Fires Blanks In
Automatic Weapons Suit
January 10, 2008--In a unanimous decision today, the D.C. Court of Appeals tossed a
long-running suit by the D.C. government against more than 20 of
the nation’s largest gunmakers, importers, or
distributors. The court found that the suit is now barred by federal law, but
the decision noted that the District might have kept the suit alive if it had
initially pursued another line of arguments. The case also included nine
individual plaintiffs who had been shot or were survivors of gunshot victims.
In 2005,
the court issued an en banc decision which
reversed the dismissal of the case in D.C. Superior Court. While the appellate
court affirmed the dismissal of negligence and public nuisance claims, it
reversed the dismissal of claims that the gunmakers
had violated the D.C. Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of
1990. Under that law, gunmakers, importers, or
distributors of assault weapons or machine guns “shall be held strictly liable
in tort, without regard to fault or proof of defect, for all direct and
consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death” resulting from
discharge of the weapons in the District.
But later
that same year, Congress passed a law that prohibited a growing number of
similar suits across the country, which essentially made the District's strict
liability act moot. The federal law also required the dismissal of most pending
gun liability suits nationwide, so the D.C. Court of Appeals tossed the
District’s suit today after rejecting a due process argument. The defendants
had included Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Browning Arms Co., Colt's Manufacturing Co.,
Glock, Inc., Sigarms, and
Smith & Wesson Corp.
However,
the court noted that the suit may have continued if D.C. government attorneys
had initially sought to prove violations of another local law that prohibits a gunmaker or seller from knowingly and willfully engaging in
illegal sales of firearms. While it would have been much more difficult to
prove complicity in illegal firearms sales, such an argument could have fit
into an exclusion in the new federal law, the decision
stated. Judge Michael Farrell wrote the panel decision issued today and the
court's 2005 en banc opinion.
“The plaintiffs will view this as small comfort to them since they chose, as was their right, to pursue another cause of action with substantially reduced proof requirements,” the decision stated. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/01/dc-fires-blanks.html
House Bill Filed To Modernize ATF
Functions
Reps.
Steve King (R-IA) and Zack Space (D-OH), have introduced HR-4900 the
"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms
Modernization Act of 2007." According to the National Rifle Association
(NRA) the bill would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and
codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena. This
bipartisan bill may be a vital step to modernize and improve ATF operations.
Of
highest importance, the measure totally rewrites the system of administrative
penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Today,
for most violations, ATF can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder
a warning, or totally revoke his license.
HR-4900
would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while
still allowing license revocation for :he kind of
serious violations that would )lock an investigation or put guns in the hands
of criminals. This prevents the ill-too-common situations where ATF has
punished licensees for insignificant technical violations-such as improper use
of abbreviations, or filing records in the wrong order.
Among
its other provisions, HR-4900 would:
Clarify
the standard for "willful" violations-allowing penalties for
intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork
mistakes;
Improve
the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs
to appeal ATF penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to
an employee of ATF itself;
Allow
a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of
business;
Reform
the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications;
Codify limits on disclosure of firearms trace data-which Congress has already
limited through a series of appropriations riders over the past three years;
Require ATF to establish clear investigative guidelines;
Clarify
the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and
other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm;