What is PAFOA doing to help PA gun laws?

[LastManOut]

I nominate JLStorm to be Legislative Communications Chairman.

(P.S. When I was VVA Chapter President that was how I handled "lets do this" suggestions from the floor.)

[RoyJackson]

IMHO, the most important thing PFOA does is publicizing proposed laws so we can react before they are acted upon in the legislature.
Secondly, PFOA provides a venue for new gun owners to learn about their firearms, carrying and the laws pertaining to firearms.
Thirdly, PFOA provides a venue for interested legislators (on both sides of the debate) to understand their constituency's thoughts and opinions. (I might be deluding myself on this one...but I think there are legislators or their aides reading these posts).

[mrwildroot]

Originally Posted by danp

PAFOA is not currently doing anything to be directly involved in lobbying for or against legislation.

This is due to the practical and legal concerns involved in such action.

Practically, we have a lot of learning to do before we can be involved in a way that helps more than it hurts. One of the worst things we can do is run off half-cocked making statements and doing stuff without fully understanding the landscape, the politics, and the people involved in this "game." Luckily there are people who are very involved in such activities in the state who have been very helpful in slowly getting us involved and educating us on the ins and outs, but have helped us understand that until a we get up to speed (which may take a while), getting too involved would probably cause more harm than good.

Legally, everything we say and do has an immense effect on the status of the organization. How much of our resources we use to influence legislation can completely change our IRS designation (which we are still trying to figure out.) Additionally, Pennsylvania has some fairly complex laws regarding lobbying which I have yet to fully research and understand.

The result of all this is that for the time being we have decided to stick to what we DO know: How to utilize the Internet to connect people and information. We can do that well, and we can do it without causing any trouble.

I have every intention of getting PAFOA involved more directly in the politics of firearm ownership in Pennsylvania. But with that said, it is going to take time, perhaps years, to be in a position where the PAFOA has the resources, knowledge, and clout to actually do anything.

In the end, the PAFOA is one person: Me, and I have a day job. Most of my time I am able to spend on the organization is spent on programming the website, maintaining the forum, and answering emails. While I have high hopes and dreams for PAFOA, the reality of life is that diving into this stuff head first isn't something you just wake up one day and do, not if you want to do it properly.

I hope this helps explain our vision of the future.

DanP,
I, for one, really appreciate your fair-handed, level-headed approach to this most complicated subject.
Providing a place for all of us to meet and share ideas and information is a great accomplishment in itself.
We are most grateful for all your efforts!
mrwildroot

[Zef_66]

I know that in the very, very, very short time I have been here, I have learned a whole lot. And I feel the same as many that this organization is best used as a source of information for its members and not as a lobbying organization....for now. If in the future the members and owners was to take this group in another direction, that is fine. But for now, I can see this group's strongest attribute is the distribution of information.

I know that I plan on doing some letter writing to my local officials. First I plan on sending out the letters about open carry to my local law enforcement headquarters. Then I plan on writing to my local elected officials and let them know my stand on gun control. I think this is the best things that I can do right now and hope that other people will continue to do the same to protect our rights.

[danp]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

Thirdly, PFOA provides a venue for interested legislators (on both sides of the debate) to understand their constituency's thoughts and opinions. (I might be deluding myself on this one...but I think there are legislators or their aides reading these posts).

This site does get some traffic from the Pennsylvania government computer networks. The Pennsylvania Senate has hit us 9 times in the past month.

[Zef_66]

Originally Posted by danp

This site does get some traffic from the Pennsylvania government computer networks. The Pennsylvania Senate has hit us 9 times in the past month.

You do searches on the IPs that come in? Sweet!

But it could just be a page or secretary or something. But it could the Senators checking things out. Lets hope for the later and that they are enlightened and educated by the site.

[WhiteFeather]

The timing on this subject is wild.

Does anyone want to take a week day to go lobby Harrisburg this fall ?

The reason I am asking, Kim Stolfer ACSL & FOAC chairman of both pro-gun groups that are in a position that PAFOA is not legally in right now was just asking me about contacting people in PAFOA on this very subject.

Is anyone interested in going and or learning how to do effectively lobby of legislators?

Going to start work on a flyer tonight for bus trip and Kim Stolfer going to be in harrisburg on Sept 19 speaking at 11:20 in front of judiciary committee, Kim is also going to finalize date with pro gun Reps.

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/pennsylva...-hearings.html

[NineseveN]

Personally, I think what PAFOA is doing right now is exactly what needs done. Guys, you have to understand that you cannot put our future into the hands of some organization or committee. Sure, it's great because people like those with the NRA, GOA, or the FOAC and ACSL locally do almost all the work, but in the end, you run the risk of the message and the organization becoming more important than the individual. We're talking about rights here, and it is important that each individual exercises and fights to protect or increase those rights. If you relegate your support of civil rights solely to some organization, you're not going to be represented fully.

Our problem isn't that we have too few lobbyists or activists, it's that we have too many gun owners that don't understand the law or are just a little bit less anti-gun than the Brady Bunch is. IMHO, it is more important to squash the notions that many gun owners have:

1. Against Open Carry (many, many gun owners are against this due to irrational arguments and fears that are not founded on any known evidence or realistic concerns).

2. Against Vermont/Alaska-style carry (many gun owners mistakenly fall for the VPC-type rhetoric that the formal LTCF process keeps guns out of criminal hands - this flies in the face of one of our main arguments, that gun laws that adversely affect the common citizen do not stop or deter criminals from obtaining or possessing arms...either gun control works or it doesn't).

3. Against so-called Assault Weapons (many gun owners are as anti-gun as Sarah Brady when the topic of Assault Weapons comes up)

4. Against LTCF's without further intrusive checks, limitations or regulations (such as mandatory training, revocation or denial for unrelated non-violent misdemeanors and/or with a lack of true due process)

5. About the differences between a right and a privilege (i.e. why do we need an AK-47 if we can't hunt with it -when hunting has little to nothing to do with the RKBA politically)

6. The truth about NFA items and firearms (many gun owners mistakenly think these should be regulated as they are and misunderstand the fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment, which is to provide for a means of defense against a standing army and a tyrannical government)


This forum provides a place for these discussions to take place and hopefully to educate other gun owners and change the minds of those holding the above well-intentioned yet uninformed opinions. Lobbyists can't do this, activists can’t really do this; we have to do it ourselves.

Groups like the NRA, ASCL, FOAC and such all have to play with a delicate balance of effectiveness and access; if they come out too hard for something like Vermont/Alaska style carry, they run the risk of exposing many of our so-called pro-gun reps that are against such measures of liberty, thus losing their access to do the things they are able to do now. If Joe Schmoe campaigns around the state as being a Second Amendment advocate and the sportsmen’s candidate, what do you think would happen to him if the issue of Vermont/Alaska Carry came up and he went against it? Most of the so-called pro-gun politicians are only as pro-gun as they have to be to secure and maintain our votes. Sure there are some exceptions, but let’s be honest with ourselves…there’s a reason why so many jokes are made about lying politicians. Stereotypes, while ugly, often contain a great deal of truth So if the PA-Gun-Right-Group forces the issue that costs Joe Schmoe to feel a lot of heat about his position, he’s not going to be very open to working with them in the future, even on something he does support unless he’s forced to or he really benefits from it more than we do. That’s the nature of access-oriented politics and lobbyism/activism.

Why do you think the NRA doesn't push hard for a repeal of the NFA and related laws? Because their access and public image is a key component to how effective they can be in the halls of legislation. Unless they have a mob of screaming gun owners that truly represent the majority behind them, we'll likely never see them in a position to push for a repeal of the NFA (on a federal level) or Alaska/Vermont carry (for our local groups).

The recent shutdown of the PICS system angered enough gun owners that abolishing PICS has some traction now and is popular enough for them to be able to truly bring it to the table, but they would not have had the same kind of exposure on such measures even a few years ago when most gun owners didn't mind PICS because it did not negatively affect them and because it wasn't a topic that mainstream gun owners were discussing. Many of us have been crying against PICS for a long time, but the cries of a few hard-line gun owners won't get traction on an issue. Never mind the notion that you cannot say that one-gun-a-month laws and AWB’s don’t work because criminals will get guns anyway and then really be for the LTCF process or background checks because they’re the same thing really. The same arguments work against them because they’re virtually the same; it boils down to making those that would follow the law jump through additional hoops to give the mere appearance that it deters or hinders those that aren’t following the law anyway. Until we erase that double standard and misconception from the majority ranks of gun owners, we’re going to be in a state of limbo where we’re vulnerable to unreasonable restrictions and unfair compromises because half or more than half of our gun owner brethren are agreeing to it or even asking for it…and the activists and lobbyists only have so much that they can work with.


We need to educate and radicalize the majority. Right now, the pro-gun vote does not generally win or lose elections in this state; we have to change that. We have too many apathetic, misinformed and ‘only pro-gun in so much as they're less anti-gun than the hard left’ gun owners in this state, the change starts with them and PAFOA has gone a long way in a short time in providing a medium to effectively educate and rally gun owners and bring us all together. That's something we really need right now and going on into the future and it’s something that only PAFOA has offered us to the extent that it could be effective.

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by WhiteFeather

The timing on this subject is wild.

Does anyone want to take a week day to go lobby Harrisburg this fall ?

Yes, I'd like to go...
I'm going to do my damndest to get to Harrisburg on the 19th. This one is going to be a bit tight though as I'll be south in the morning.

Also, if there are enough persons interested, we'll want a bus or van. Parking in Harrisburg is, at best, a pain in the butt.

Also, I do not believe you can carry in the Statehouse, so we'll need to find out for sure before attending these hearings (when I went to one of the hearings, I locked my gun in my vehicle).

These hearings may be recorded for broadcast. It was when I went.
If you want to testify, have something written and reviewed (by a friend) before you go. At least have it spell checked.
If possible (and this may be mandatory...was when I testified) have copies of your testimony for distribution.
We don't want to look like a bunch of toothless rednecks (which is exactly what I look like before I dress up). If you have a sports coat, I'd suggest wearing it. LOOK PRESENTABLE!

Now, can Kim get information on when other bills will be coming up for public comment? I'm specifically asking about the "Assault Rifle" ban.

[danp]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Groups like the NRA, ASCL, FOAC and such all have to play with a delicate balance of effectiveness and access; if they come out too hard for something like Vermont/Alaska style carry, they run the risk of exposing many of our so-called pro-gun reps that are against such measures of liberty, thus losing their access to do the things they are able to do now. If Joe Schmoe campaigns around the state as being a Second Amendment advocate and the sportsmen’s candidate, what do you think would happen to him if the issue of Vermont/Alaska Carry came up and he went against it? Most of the so-called pro-gun politicians are only as pro-gun as they have to be to secure and maintain our votes. Sure there are some exceptions, but let’s be honest with ourselves…there’s a reason why so many jokes are made about lying politicians. Stereotypes, while ugly, often contain a great deal of truth So if the PA-Gun-Right-Group forces the issue that costs Joe Schmoe to feel a lot of heat about his position, he’s not going to be very open to working with them in the future, even on something he does support unless he’s forced to or he really benefits from it more than we do. That’s the nature of access-oriented politics and lobbyism/activism.

Why do you think the NRA doesn't push hard for a repeal of the NFA and related laws? Because their access and public image is a key component to how effective they can be in the halls of legislation. Unless they have a mob of screaming gun owners that truly represent the majority behind them, we'll likely never see them in a position to push for a repeal of the NFA (on a federal level) or Alaska/Vermont carry (for our local groups).

This is a very important point that I think a lot of people don't get. Sure we all want to get rid of 922(o), get Alaska-style carry, remove the sporting purposes clauses, etc. The reality of the situation is attempting to do so would cost immense amounts of political capital and would probably fail in the current political climate. Sure it would make people feel good because they tried, but ultimately they wasted resources, possibly burned people, and got nothing accomplished.

The most important aspect of any "conflict" is to identify the battles you can win, and focus on them. This is what gun rights advocates have been doing for years and I think it is a very effective strategy.

Case in point, the relation between concealed carry laws and stand your ground laws. Before concealed carry became popular and most people realized that it wasn't going to result in OK-Corral-style shootouts in the streets, the idea of stand-your-ground-laws probably would have been unheard of and stood no chance of going anywhere. But once we worked on concealed carry, the landscape changed and provided new opportunities.

Every step in this process is a building block, by focusing on the small battles we can win, we build a strong foundation on which we can continue.

Always be aware of the person who screams for massive change and expects to get it instantly. In my experience those people (in any field be it school, work, etc.) will usually end up causing more trouble than they will contribute to a positive goal.