The Mayor of Pittsburgh has signed the illegal ordinances and is officially an accomplice in the City's criminal enterprise in violating State preemption laws and the Constitutions of the USA and PA. He also did this behind closed doors, where anti-liberty groups were welcomed and concerned Law Abiding Citizens and Veterans were turned away. I commend FOAC members Dave Haid, Val Finnell and others for trying to personally witness the signing of these illegal ordinances, even though they were prevented from attending.
In the first action, Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League (“ACSL”) filed a contempt petition for numerous violations of a 1995 Court Order approving a Settlement Agreement between the City of Pittsburgh and ACSL, et al. The petition for contempt requests that the court fine and sanction the City of Pittsburgh, award attorney fees and costs, and hold the Mayor and Councilmembers severally and jointly liable for violating terms of a longstanding court order that required them to “abide by and adhere to Pennsylvania law.” As the City of Pittsburgh stipulated that the City’s Ordinance 30 of 1994 was preempted by 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, as it regulated the use, possession, and transfer of what the City classified as "assault weapons," ammunition and firearm accessories, ACSL contends that the City’s new gun control laws clearly and unequivocally violate the Settlement Agreement and Court Order.
A second action, brought by Firearm Owners Against Crime, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and several individuals, in a 94 page Complaint, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Pittsburgh, Mayor Peduto and the individual City Councilmembers that voted in favor of the anti-gun enactments. The Complaint, spanning 16 counts, includes counts for numerous violations of everything from the Pennsylvania Constitution to the Crimes Code to failure to comply with the City Home Rule Charter and City Council Rules.
It is unfortunate that City’s taxpayers will be burdened by the City’s elected officials believing it is acceptable - and even gloating - that they are violating the Pennsylvania Constitution and Crimes Code. It is also unfathomable that an administration that has labeled itself as transparent, precluded interested individuals, including two veterans, from attending the “public” signing ceremony while permitting anti-gun groups to attend; thereby attempting to suppress the First Amendment and Article 1, Section 7 rights of those individuals who were denied admission solely on the basis that they were not members of CeaseFirePA or Moms Demand Action.
IF these lies and actions are allowed to stand then every Pittsburgh citizen and 'anyone' who crosses the City of Pittsburgh boundary is at risk of prosecution and incarceration for violating these illegal ordinances. Even more so, the video shows the intent is to see ALL communities work on local laws throughout Pennsylvania so IF you think this doesn't affect you then you need to listen to the statements of the Mayor and the groups they are working with.
We will do everything in our power to protect our Constitution and the rights of ALL citizens to be free from government's unlawful acts and tyranny but NOW is the time to stand up and be counted!
FOAC has spear headed a Coalition of Liberty minded organizations who are standing together to deliver a common message of unity and freedom. FOAC Board member and ACSL President, Klint Macro, has worked tirelessly to put together this campaign where “We The People” can remind our elected officials that they are in office to PROTECT our Liberties… NOT Assault them.
Please help us spread this message by printing copies of the “Stop The Assault” campaign letter and mail them to your local, state, and federal elected officials on February 1st, 2019; National Freedom Day.
Elected officials MUST STOP THEIR ATTACK on the Liberties of law abiding American citizens. Whether it be a limitation or restriction of free speech, religion, due process, personal property rights, or the right to self-preservation and the right to protect those that we love; the incremental erosion of one right is an attack on them all.
Liberty is a “Yes or No” proposition. We either have Liberty or we do not.
If each of us invests a little effort and a few dollars in ink and stamps, we can remind those in office that we are watching and we will no longer stand by while they Assault our Rights, Liberties, and Freedom with the stroke of a pen.
Today, in advance of Pittsburgh City Council's December 18th meeting to formally announce its illegal firearm proposals, Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®), a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., on behalf of its clients, Allegheny County Sportsmen's League and Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), filed a letter in opposition to the proposals; wherein, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince explains the constitutional and statutory protections and case law precluding such regulation.
In the event Pittsburgh moves forward with the proposals, ACSL and FOAC will take legal action against the City and request that Allegheny County District Attorney Zappala file criminal charges against the Mayor and City Council for violations of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301 (official oppression) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120 (preemption). A copy of the joint press release by ACSL and FOAC is available here.
If you are in a position to be able to support this matter, ACSL and FOAC would greatly appreciate donations, which can be made online through the Firm’s escrow account here – https://secure.lawpay.com/pages/civilrightsdefensefirm/trust. Simply place "ACSL/FOAC Pittsburgh Preemption Litigation" in the reference box.
If you or someone you know has been the victim of an unlawful municipal firearm or ammunition regulation or ordinance, contact FICG today to discuss your options.
In spite of the fact that ATF has always concluded that these devices are lawful and do not qualify as “machine guns” Trump intends, with the stroke of a pen, to render all who own them felons, if they don’t turn them into the police.
However you feel about these devices, it is truly chilling that a President can turn unknown numbers of good Americans into criminals for owning a device they purchased legally and Congress is silent on the bypassing of Federal Law. If a piece of plastic that does nothing but simplify what you can achieve with no modifications to a firearm can be banned and confiscated, what prevents this, or any future president, from banning the firearms they are attached to?
“Bump” firing is a technique that can be done without a “bump stock" on ANY semi-automatic firearm. Is a plan to ban your fingers next?
Trump promised to protect the Second Amendment. With this action we slide further down the slope. This is an attack on an entire class of firearms (Semi-Automatic) because no matter the looks they ALL function the same. Further, we do not even know for sure which weapons were used in the single criminal incident that they were, purportedly, used in!
Had Trump traded bump stocks for National Reciprocity and/or deregulation of suppressors, we would have still disagreed, but the master “deal maker” could say we got "something." But we got nothing even though the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House.
Remember, at the heart of ALL gun control is government saying to ALL law-abiding citizens that 'we can't trust YOU to exercise your rights responsibly' so we are taking this away from you!
Please send a message to your Congressman that this attack on a legal firearms accessory is nothing more than state sponsored theft and a dangerous and unconstitutional step towards tyranny.
FOAC is going to be on the Mangino Show (KDKA) today (THIS AFTERNOON – 11/27/2018) at 6:05 p.m. We will be following up the statement of the Auditor General (at 5:30 p.m.) on his report.
The issues for this show: The Pennsylvania Auditor General has put together a report on so-called ‘firearm safety’ that mixes issues of gun control and more intrusive government with outright lies. This is but the first of many shots across the bow that will be coming in the new, upcoming session that will focus on more regulation of firearms ownership.
Sorry for the late notice but KDKA just called.
The AG report in question can be found here.
FOAC will be on the Southwestern TV stations: WTAE and KDKA today, 11/12/2018, on the evening news responding to Mayor Peduto and his push to enact criminal gun control in Pittsburgh.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article on Veteran's Day regarding Peduto's intent to violate the law AND the 1995 consent decree signed by Pittsburgh when they illegally tried to ban so-called Assault Weapons!
The TV stations are reaching out for a response which FOAC was all too happy to give.
UPDATE - Pressure is Working - HB 2060: PA SENATE to Consider Sen. Eichelberger Amendment Tomorrow (10/3): Please Help!
After days of gun owner pressure, along with the concerted pressure of Sen. Reschenthaler and other Senators like Sen. Bartolotta, the Pennsylvania Senate will be considering an amendment by Sen. Eichelberger to HB 2060.
This amendment will restore "friends" as a source to surrender or relinquish firearms after a PFA has been imposed.
Once again we need your help in the guise of phone calls and emails Senate in support of Sen. Eichelberger's amendment. It is still being drafted so I do not have an amendment number.
If this amendment is included in the bill and passed by the Senate then FOAC will take a neutral position on this legislation but only if, and I repeat, if this legislation is amended with Sen. Eichelberger's amendment!
We need your help tomorrow morning to put pressure on the Senators in support of Sen. Eichelberger and his amendment! This is a highly critical alert and we do not have much time to work on the Senate.
Please target all of the Republicans with your e-mails and phone calls in the Pennsylvania Senate and Sen. Brewster and Sen. Yudichak. You can find them all at this link: https://foac-pac.org/PA-Legislator-Info .
If you are an active FOAC member you can sign into the FOAC website and go to your member's area for ALL of the Senate e-mails in one block.
You've all been wonderful and highly supportive and we deeply appreciate all your hard work!
The gun control insanity that has gripped much of our nation has finally raised its’ ugly head here in PA. Next week (9/24-9/25) the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, spurred on by Speaker of the House Rep. Turzai, is slated to consider two bills that were tabled in June – HB 2060 & HB 2227.
These are both an affront to our Constitution at the state and federal level. What’s worse is that Republican Leadership KNOWS this just as they know both expand the power of government at the expense of the Due Process rights of the accused with HB 2227 creating an entirely ‘new’ section of law involving suspension of ‘Due Process’.
Over the summer, FOAC has worked diligently to examine both bills with some great attorneys and have attempted to convey this to other groups, gun owners and PA House members. On Thursday (the 20th of Sept.) we were told that a September Surprise (meaning gun owners were being stabbed in the back) was coming and that both HB 2060 & HB 2227 would see floor action on Sept. 24th & 25th respectively.
We have done EVERYTHING we can to stop this freight train but are told that UNLESS YOU (gun owners) speak out and DEMAND leadership pull these bills they WILL PASS. We as a group (gun owners) have been silent TOO DAMN LONG!! NOW we are faced with House Leadership and SE Republicans and a ‘Host’ of anti-gun Democrats who think they can ignore citizens’ rights along with the reality of all the major gun groups rallying around these two gun bills that will severely damage the short and long term rights of all citizens to be treated fairly in the halls of justice.
PFA’s (Protection from Abuse Orders) are often “weaponized” or “tactical”. This means that a spouse decides to get a divorce and makes false accusations so as to kick their spouse out of the house and onto the street and take away their ability to have firearms for hunting, target shooting or protection. The kicked-out spouse is branded an abuser without trial and often discovers that bank accounts are drained and credit cards maxed out. The law is badly in need of reform to mandate investigation and prosecution of those who make false statements. This legislation does nothing to fix these abuses and encourages more abuses of the system.
I am going to close with the fact that this legislation is an Existential Threat to our rights and is a TURNING POINT for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We NEED and MUST HAVE your calls, e-mails and ‘presence’ in Harrisburg on Monday and Tuesday!
The straight forward message YOU MUST TELL PA HOUSE MEMBERS is to OPPOSE both bills! No Compromise, no Deals, no Amending either one as their core structure is irredeemably flawed.
Go HERE to find the contact information for EVERY PA HOUSE MEMBER: https://foac-pac.org/PA-Legislator-Info and to find House Committee members you can go here: https://foac-pac.org/PA-House-Committees - we’ve given you the tools so now this is a no ‘excuses’ moment! The apathy of gun owners has put ALL OF US in this predicament and we are now faced with a put up or shut up moment! We have done all we can to stop these bills and NOW it is up to you to Stand Up and Be Counted or RUE THE DAY if these pass!!
We live in a troubling and challenging time for our constitutional Freedoms! Never in the history of our nation and state has our Constitution and rights been under such an assault! Frankly, it is shocking to hear politicians openly disrespecting the Constitution as well as our fellow citizens. Ignorance, apathy, arrogant and insidious innuendo all seem to be part and parcel of today’s willingness to shed our Freedoms in favor of totalitarian and invasive concepts!
The recent exchange between two Republicans, Pennsylvania State Representative Rick Saccone and Representative Warren Kampf, illustrates the disregard far too many in office hold for the Constitution! During this exchange Representative Kampf chided Representative Saccone for bringing up the Pennsylvania Constitution by saying (I’m paraphrasing) get off that Constitution crap!
Into this backdrop of constitutional friction, we find ourselves thrust into the greatest gun-control Porsche we have faced in Pennsylvania in the last 15 years! After seven (7) lengthy Judiciary Committee hearings on the issue of gun control (the first six of which were focused on more regulation and restrictions) the committee is focused on advancing nine different gun - related bills on June 19, 2018!
In the first six hearings in the Judiciary Committee the anti-gun groups, wearing their trademark red shirts, prorated their socialist ideals for all to see and yet gunowners sat on their hands choosing to ignore the very real threat that they posed! There are 14 gun clubs within a 30-minute drive of the Pennsylvania State capital with a rough estimate of over 85,000 gun owners and yet no participation from them at these hearings.
You may be wondering why this information is just coming out now but the fact is that the agenda for the Pennsylvania house judiciary committee did not get released until late Friday as we have been working hard for the past week at trying to discern whether these bills would even run since the committee put off this legislation on June 12. If nothing else leaders in Harrisburg have learned that given enough time the average Pennsylvania citizen will reject gun control overwhelmingly so they run these things at the last minute hoping that you don’t care or don’t have the time to get involved.
HB 2463 – Nelson – Makes 3 critically important changes to PA law and firearms ownership for individuals who have been involuntarily committed.
Removes the prohibition for firearms ownership for individuals committed through the 302-examination process.
Requires that the PSP Update NICS within 72 hours of any change to a RKBA disqualification.
FOAC Position: Opposed to original bill but could shift to ‘neutral’ depending on language of any amendments.
HB 2060 – Quinn – 3rd Party Elimination – PFA’s – Original Version has Due process and surrender problems. Similar to 1st version of SB 501 prior to amendments – ‘Must’ be amended!
HB 1872 – Dean / Costa – this legislation bans ‘any’ this bill would ban the possession ‘and’ sale of “Multiburst Trigger Activators”, and even their part or parts, that accelerate the rate of fire of any firearm. Notice that this grandfathers in previously possessed “Multiburst Trigger Activators” but would prohibit their transfer to any Pennsylvanian in the future ‘and’ that includes firearms so equipped ‘or’ replacement for wear and tear. Draconian Legislation!
HB 1400 – Santora – This bill requires a background check for ‘all’ firearms sales or transfers in Pennsylvania. This would end the private transfer of all rifles and shotguns. HB1400 is deceptive in providing a supposed benefit of allowing a second purchase of a firearm (at a gun show) if previously approved within 72 hours.
HB 273 – Donatucci – Voluntary Self-Exclusion from Firearm possession, purchases or transfers. Length of time on list – 1 year, 5 years or Lifetime.
Perhaps our time has passed for respecting our Constitution and our Freedoms will be going the way of the dodo bird? Perhaps we are rooted in old world concepts and are no longer relevant? Standing up for our Constitution and Freedoms is neither easy nor convenient but it is our duty as citizens!
On June 19 we will see how many gun owners in the Commonwealth agree because one thing is certain the redshirted socialist simpletons will be parading around the halls of Harrisburg, as they have been for the last four months, working to take away your Freedoms.
I know I will be there and I’m hoping you’re willing to sacrifice your time and join me!
On Saturday, March 24th, there will be an anti-gun protest at the Beaver County Court House. American Patriots, who understand the Constitution to be the law of the land, specifically the 2nd Amendment, will also be there to show our support for our constitutionally guaranteed Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
There’s a lot of anti-gun energy moving our way, and it’s up to us, the American Patriots and gun owners to defend what we believe in, if we want to keep it.
We will gather at 11:30am across the street from the court house. Pease join us. If you have a pro-gun sign, bring it along.
Thank you for all your hard work in reaching out to Congressmen regarding National Concealed Carry Reciprocity (HR 38)!! There is great news to report in that the House Judiciary Committee today passed, by a 19-11 vote, the National Reciprocity, Constitutional Carry-friendly, legislation – HR 38 (by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) – was voted out of the House committee and is now on its way to passage by the full House.
Overview: This legislation would allow anyone with a License To Carry Firearms, and anyone from a Constitutional Carry state, to carry in ANY state in the country -- thereby countering the unconstitutional, socialist laws of anti-gun states. This legislation also provides legal protections for citizens who are arrested by ignorant anti-gun local officials who ignore the law.
The legislation includes the legal definition of "handgun" to include "any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into a handgun or its magazine."
This would circumvent efforts by states like Massachusetts and California to effectively ban guns by banning and/or registering magazines and ammo.
Suffice it to say that pushing the GOOD version of reciprocity to the verge of House passage and enactment is a huge accomplishment which should not be underestimated.
As we all expected, anti-gun Democrats tried to water down the inclusion of protections for Constitutional Carry and by a 17-8 vote, Republicans defeated an anti-gun amendment offered by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) that would have limited concealed carry reciprocity to permit holders only.
The House Judiciary Committee also passed a "Fix NICS" bill which we are watching closely.
Both bills now advance to the floor of the House.
The time we have ALL been waiting for has come and NOW is the time we need YOUR help!
Mandatory nationwide recognition of Concealed Carry [reciprocity] is FOAC’s highest legislative priority in Congress. In accordance with the Constitutional concept of ‘Full Faith and Credit’, H.R. 38 would ensure that states recognize the concealed carry credentials of all other states. This would end abuses in anti-gun states like New York and New Jersey and allow law-abiding concealed carriers to exercise their rights nationwide with peace of mind. It would also provide legal recourse if state or local government tries to deny you the carrying of firearms and/or arrests and prosecutes you in violation of federal law!
H.R. 38 does NOT, as some critics claim, change how states issue their own concealed carry permits. It would also require concealed carriers in other states to obey the laws for concealed carry in each state in which they travel.
Federal gun control hearing is next week!
Unfortunately, the NRA strategy of kicking this over to the BATFE in the (flawed) hope that they would institute a regulatory solution to so-called “bump stocks” has backfired as the BATFE kicked the can back to Congress.
And if you think this is about banning the “bump stocks” nobody likes, you are equally wrong.
With anti-gun Democrats and the media still at full-throated roar, roughly two dozen gun control bills have been introduced in the weeks since Las Vegas. While most of those won’t see the light of a committee hearing, the so-called “bump stock” bans in the House and Senate will.
What else? Frankly, it’s impossible to know.
And yes, the “slippery slope” which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “certainly hopes” will lead to further gun control will almost certainly lead to debate over “high” capacity magazines, as in the ban introduced by Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-CT).
The ostensibly “mainstream” media is doing its best to gloss over the fact that in the horrific church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, it was not only a “good guy with a gun,” but a good guy with an AR-15 who stopped the killer by shooting him at least twice. Stephen Willeford is an American hero.
Yes, this is the third time in recent years in which an armed private citizen has stopped a mass homicide in a church.
Yes, gun control failed again as, for the second time in recent weeks, the killer underwent a NICS check to get his firearms.
Nope, the gun ban advocates care about one thing and one thing only: That they have an opportunity to ban your guns in order to better control you.
What will stop gun control?
It’s been said that, “The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Well, I’m here to tell you that the only thing that will stop a gun ban organization with clout is a no-compromise gun rights group with clout.
FOAC is exactly that no-compromise gun group, not only at a state level, but also in fighting federal gun control.
The problem is that right now, the problem our side faces is that we just want to be left alone. So when we win an election, we go back to our lives.
But the left doesn’t think that way. They want control – control over YOU. Consequently, they never go away, they never stop, they never sleep. They just keep coming back again and again until they get what they want which is, in this case, the end of the Second Amendment.
Immediately make three phone calls to Sen. Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania and your Congressman (contact info here) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley and let them know that NO GUN CONTROL IS ACCEPTABLE. Call Toomey at (717-782-3951), and call Grassley at (515) 288-1145. (Yes, these are their district offices, not their Washington offices).
With your help, we will once again prevail.
Pittsburgh City Council will vote on banning firearms in City Parks in 'direct' violation of Pennsyvania Court precedent (FOAC v. Lower Merion) and Pennsylvania law as well as a 1994 court order where the City of Pittsburgh agreed to abide by ALL Pennsylvania Law regarding firearms. Pennsylvania law (Title 18, Section 6120) removes ALL authority from municipalities and cities regarding banning or restricting firearms.
Please make your voice heard about this clear violation of Pennsylvania Law that is even a Misdemeanor 1 criminal offense (Title 18, Section 6119).
Thank you for all your interest and support!
We strongly support giving teachers the Choice AND Right to be armed to defend themselves! Twenty-four states now allow teachers and staff to carry, though the rules vary across states. Alabama, Utah, New Hampshire, and parts of Oregon leave it up to the teachers and staff to carry. For example, in neighboring Ohio, at least 40 school districts allow teachers to carry.
However there are significant issues with SB 383 regarding the requirement for a teacher to disclose, and provide proof, of possession of a License to Carry Firearms. In 1995 access to License To Carry Firearm information was made confidential due to concerns that disclosure could put citizens at risk. These concerns have been borne out in other states that do not have these controls. Security of this information, and accountability for its' release is 'not' an insignificant concern!
Yesterday in the PA Senate, Senator Street added an amendment that teachers who wish to carry would be required to be psychologically evaluated! This raises a host of issues not the least of which is the anti-gun mantra of requiring psychological testing to even 'own' a firearm.
Certain aspects of this legislation is deeply troubling and we cannot support it at this time. SB 383 is up for final (3rd) consideration today and the PA Senate convenes at 1 p.m. Please keep in mind that Senator White is a 'very good' Senator and I don't think that he has been made aware of all of these concerns properly!!
The PA Game Commission Commissioners are meeting right now for their quarterly meeting and the Commissioners have stabbed gun owners and hunters in the back by REFUSING to authorize Semi-Auto firearms for hunting big game!
No matter how you slice this betrayal of trust, this is a huge victory for anti-gun groups which will spin this as a gun safety issue despite the record across the nation of success!
More developments to come. . . . .
Today Pennsylvania moved out of the dark ages when Governor Wolf signed HB 263 into law providing for the lawful use of Semi-Auto firearms and air rifles in hunting. This legislation will end a decades long unfounded prejudice against these types of firearms. Please take a moment to reach out and thank your state Representative, your state Senator and Governor Wolf for supporting this important legislation!
Also, PLEASE reach out and let your friends and fellow hunters know that these changes on the use of these firearms will NOT take effect until the 2017 hunting season as the PA Game Commission will have to craft the regulations governing the suitable ammunition calibers and magazine capacities as well as the game animals where these firearms will be permitted. The focus now, for all of us, should be on contacting the PA Game Commission (PGC) Commissioners and insisting that the use of these firearms should encompass Big Game hunting (i.e. Deer & Bear) and 'not' be limited to a small number of game animals. In the hearings before the House Game & Fish Committee this year PA Game Commission Exec. Director Matt Hough' testimony indicated a reluctance to allow the widespread use of these firearms, which is an unsupported and unfounded bias and prejudice based in political speak.
Interestingly, Germany (known for their tough gun control) has recently authorized the use of these firearms for hunting in that country.
These firearms help women and youth engage in the hunting sports more effectively due to the diminished recoil and adaptability of these firearms. In addition, they provide for faster follow up shots so that wounded game can be more humanely harvested.
The PA Game Commission has a working group meeting coming up on December 5th and we encourage all interested hunters who would like to use these types of firearms to reach out and communicate your support to the PGC Commissioners.
This morning there will be a final voting session prior to the election (the legislature 'may' come back in November-Sine Die) and there has been furious wrangling over two bills that you should know about.
HB 263 (as amended in the Senate) will legalize the use of 'air rifles' and 'semi-auto rifles' in hunting. This bill is on the 'marked' calendar for voting today.
"DOMESTIC FOWL." ANY AVIS RAISED FOR FOOD, HOBBY OR SPORT.
This language was added in the Senate and is not used anywhere else in the bill. This bill was supposed to protect 'dogs and cats' from abuse, a laudable goal. However, it appears the 'animal rights extremists' have manipulated the language to provide them an advantage in court against hunting and training dogs with live birds. This bill is scheduled to be amended in the Rules Committee and if you have time this morning please contact the Rules Committee members and ask them to correct the language above as well as the language in the 'Torture' sections of HB 869.
Thank you for your attention to this last minute request!
Important End of Session Vote Coming in Senate and House - HB 263 - Please Help!
Tomorrow the PA Senate and House will consider HB 263 which has been amended with legislative language to authorize the use of semi-automatic firearms for hunting as is legal in 'ALL' other states.
We are asking for your help in reaching out to your State Senator 'and' your State House member, as well as the Senate and House Leadership, to ask them to pass HB 263, as amended today in the Senate. There were 11 Senators who voted against this legislation but 39 voted for it.
FOAC members will find all the Senate and House legislators contact information in their Member's section of the FOAC website. If you are not a member 'yet' please go to the PA Legislator FOAC page for the listing of every PA Senate and House member along with their contact information.
I also want to thank all of you for your continued patience and persistence in keeping up the pressure on the legislature. Your frustration at the lack of action by the leadership in Harrisburg on critical Pro-Gun legislation is not lost on all of us and we share it. Much of this is directly connected to the flood of Millions of Dollars of anti-gun billionnaires donating to anti-gun groups to advance gun control at the expense of the truth. Your involvement is the ONLY thing stopping the anti-gun groups and I cannot thank YOU enough!
In a clear sign of rejecting the lies of the anti-gun groups such as cease-fire PA and mom’s demand action, today the Pennsylvania Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of SB 1330, strengthening of Pennsylvania firearms preemption law, by a vote of 30 – 19 the legislation passed.
It is important to remember that we have dozens if not hundreds of communities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which are arrogantly thumbing their nose at Pennsylvania criminal law and passing their own local laws in defiance of not only the crimes code but also the “equal protections clause” of the Constitution!
We ask that you take two actions now. First reach out to your House of Representatives member and ask them to support SB 1330. Then also reach out and contact your Senator to thank him/her ‘if’ they supported SB 1330. Also please share your dissatisfaction with the 19 Senators who violated their oath to uphold Commonwealth law and ‘not’ put citizen safety and well-being at risk, which each of these Senators did by opposing this common sense bill!
Time is short and there is very little opportunity to see this bill through the legislative process and put SB 1330 on the desk of the governor so we need all of you to focus and put as much energy as you can into passing this legislation!
Thank you for paying attention to this important update and for being so passionate about defending the freedom so many in this nation have sacrificed for!
I try not to burden you with a lot of e-mails but this one is significant. As you may know we have been working to advance pro-gun legislation in Harrisburg and are on the cusp of two of our issues being addressed, finally!
These bills involve preemption (HB 2258 & SB 1330) and semi-auto firearms for hunting (SB 737) and are all keyed up and ready to go EXCEPT we are being held hostage by anti-gunners and money and ‘apathy’ among our ranks!
We are being blocked by a concerted effort from anti-gun groups through their minions of evil (anti-gun legislators) in a historic show of abuse of the political process. HB 2258 has had 242 amendments filed AGAINST it and this is a record. SB 737 has had 19 amendments filed against it. The end goal is to force leadership to pull the bills from consideration.
Also, PLEASE contact your PA State House Member today as well!! If you don’t know who that is then click the link below to search using your address for your legislators.
I’m laying this in your laps because gun owners are faced with an ugly reality! IF we do not get more of our friends and family involved and calling their legislators and leadership of BOTH parties then I fear our ability to get ANYTHING passed will be impossible.
What is even more critical is that the NEXT step for them is to force anti-gun legislation to be passed or these political whores will shut down work on other bills.
I’m sorry but I have done everything I can think of and have been warning you of this coming evolution of the political process for a while. Well it is HERE now. Either get involved now or plan on PA becoming New Jersey in the not too distant future and prepare to surrender your firearms because what is going on now is ONLY going to get worse!
Sorry for the bad news but I’m NOT going to sugar coat the dire situation we are faced with!
Thank you for considering this important message!
The PA House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has scheduled a voting meeting for tomorrow, 9/20 – 10 a.m., to vote on four (4) bills one of which is HB 2258, Rep. Mark Keller’s Firearm Preemption legislation. This would strengthen Pennsylvania's preemption statute, as was passed in 2014, and help to discourage PA municipalities from enacting ‘illegal local’ gun laws.
We are asking you to call and/or e-mail Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Marsico and respectfully request that he bring House Bill 2258 to a vote and that he support the bill. In addition, please also contact all the members of the Judiciary Committee, as well as your Representative, and ask that they support House Bill 2258.
This legislation, HB 2258, provides for the recovery of legal expenses incurred, by gun owners or organizations, when local municipalities are sued for enacting local ordinances, or continue to maintain them, in violation of PA Preemption Law, Title 18 §6120 Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.
Communities that enact their own ordinances/laws are in direct violation of, not only, PA law but also the Ortiz Supreme Court decision (1996) and Dillon’s Rule?
The Home Rule Charter also prohibits the enactment of ‘any’ law regarding firearms by ‘any’ community covered by this charter?
These community officials are engaging in outright criminal (Title 18, §6119) and civil disobedience with the intent to flaunt and violate state law believing they have immunity from liability and prosecution?
That citizens and private volunteer organizations have, and are, spending their own money trying to reinstate the rule of law?
These violations are occurring with the tacit approval of the state District Attorneys who have the authority to act and are refusing to hold these local officials accountable?
Provide a legal means for individuals and organizations who successfully sue these local municipalities to hold them financially accountable thus preserving and protecting the rule of law and empowering citizens with the ability to fight city hall and be compensated fairly for expenses incurred.
Adds a specific option for damages IF local government enacts a law contrary to the Preemption section §6120 Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition or 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g) (relating to limitation on municipal powers).
If a court of law finds that it was an ordinance that violates Pennsylvania Preemption law (Title 18, §6120), the local government shall pay the actual damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs to the party who successfully challenges the regulation.
This is critically important legislation to halt the spread of anti-gun groups, and their minions in local government, who act in violation of PA Laws.
Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this important Alert!
Breaking News: Obama ATF Announces Backdoor Ammo Ban!
This is not a drill. The Obama administration just implemented a new regulatory change that has sent the entire firearms industry into a tailspin overnight.
A key ingredient necessary for making gunpowder has been re-classified as a high explosive, making it illegal for any company within the industry to transport or store it as they have for decades.
It all stems from how the ATF regulates a chemical compound known as nitrocellulose. For decades, the firearm industry has been allowed to store and transport wetted nitrocellulose without having to treat it as a high explosive. Manufacturers deliberately mix the chemical compound with water to make it less volatile.
Overnight, the ATF just completely changed its regulations, turning everyone in the ammunition industry into felons if they do business the way they have for decades.
The entire industry is now at a standstill. Without nitrocellulose, you can’t make smokeless gunpowder. Without smokeless powder, there’s no ammunition.
This is a fast developing situation on expanding the denial of owning a firearm because you or I are on some kind of list. The latest version of the attack on our 2nd Amendment Rights is embodied in HR 5611 (HB 5611 on FOAC Site) and it contains many flaws. Some of the worst problems are identified below for your review and consideration.
Unless these problems are corrected we cannot support this legislation.
Please contact your Congressman and tell them to oppose this legislation until these issues are addressed and 'no' American is put through the requirement to 'Prove' their innocence to the government.
SB 1330 is critically important Preemption Legislation that would restore what the PA Supreme Court took away when they struck down ACT 192 last week. Preemption of firearms laws is important in maintaining one set of rules and laws that is uniform across Pennsylvania. In 2014 the legislature signed HB 80 into law, as ACT 192, and this legislation simply provided for standing and recovery of legal fees if local communities enacted or maintained illegal firearms laws. Over 100 communities have these illegal laws in defiance of Title 18, Section 6120 (crimes codes) and District Attorneys are 'not' stopping these laws as they should. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown are a few of the main violators of this law.
Yesterday SB 1330 passed out of committee, PA Senate Local Government, by an 8-3 vote and will now be considered by the 'full' Senate on the floor.
Also, please thank Sen. Alloway for introducing SB 1330 and Sen. Hutchinson, Chairman of the Local Government Committee, for moving SB 1330 out of committee.


text:
The Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank, a Canadian corporation with a principal place of business at Toronto-Dominion Center, King Street W. and Bay Street, Toronto, ON M5K 1A2, Ontario, Canada, represented by Mr.Ronald Daignault of Pennie & Edmonds LLP of New York.
The Respondent is Mr. Boris Karpachev of 535 Auburn Street, Apartment 2, Newton, Massachusetts 02466, USA, representing himself.
The disputed domain names are "tdwatergouse.com" and "dwaterhouse.com" and the Registrar is 1stDomain.Net of Hawaii, USA.
The Complaint was received by the Center by email on November 14, 2000, and in hard copy on November 15, 2000. The Center acknowledged receipt on November 20, 2000. On November 23, 2000, the Center sought registration details from the Registrar. On December 5, the Registrar confirmed that the respondent is the registrant, the Policy applies to the domain names and that the status of each of the disputed domain names is "active."
On November 14, 2000, the Center satisfied itself that the Complainant had complied with all formal requirements, including payment of the prescribed fee; printed out a copy of the disputed Web pages from the "tdwatergouse.com" site; formally notified the Respondent by post/courier and email of the Complaint and of the commencement of this administrative proceeding and sent copies to the Complainant, the Registrar and ICANN.
The formal date of the commencement of the proceeding was accordingly December 6, 2000. The last day specified in the notice for a response was December 25, 2000. On December 14 the Respondent transmitted to the Center an "open letter to Toronto-Dominion Bank", which he specifically said was not the formal answer to the Complaint. On December 24, 2000, the Respondent filed a Response by email and on December 27, 2000, in hardcopy. Its receipt was acknowledged by the Center on December 24, 2000.
On January 3, 2001, the Center notified the parties of the appointment of Alan L Limbury as the administrative panel, Mr Limbury having submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality. The Center nominated January 17, 2001, as the date by which, absent exceptional circumstances, the panel is required to forward its decision to the Center.
The panel is satisfied that the Complaint was filed in accordance with the requirements of the Rules and Supplemental Rules; payment was properly made; the panel agrees with the Center�s assessment concerning the Complaint�s compliance with the formal requirements; the Complaint was properly notified in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules; the Response was filed within the time specified by the Rules and the single-member administrative panel was properly constituted.
On January 4, 2001, the complainant sought leave to submit a reply, referring to the "open letter" as a document the complainant did not know would form part of the record until it was so informed by the Center. That document was included in the file forwarded to the panel pursuant to Rule 2(h)(iii). On January 4, 2001, the panel, having read the complaint, the response and the "open letter", each in electronic form, without exhibits, decided not to grant leave at that stage, saying that, after considering the whole file, the panel would make a request under Rule 12 for any supplementary submission the panel considered warranted and would provide reasons in this decision.
The Panel does not regard the "open letter" as part of the Response and has therefore disregarded it entirely.
"The Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"), though, do not provide the parties with any right to file replies on their own volition. Rather, Rule 12 provides that only the Panel may request further submissions. Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v. Pop Data Technologies, Case No. D2000-0166 (WIPO June 1, 2000)�"
"�many panels have held that additional submissions are inappropriate except in the rarest of circumstances, such as discovery of evidence not reasonably available to the submitting party at the time of its initial submission, or arguments by the respondent that the complainant could not reasonably have anticipated. Id.; Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd.; Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., Case No. D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. G.A.B. Enterprises, Case No. D2000-0416 (WIPO June 29, 2000); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod, Case No. D2000-0662 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2000); Electronic Commerce Media, Inc. v. Taos Mountain, File No. FA0008000095344 (NAF October 11, 2000); Parfums Christian Dior S.A. v. Jadore, Case No. D2000-0938 (WIPO November 3, 2000); Viz Communications, Inc. v. Redsun "dba www.animerica.com", Case No. D2000-0905 (WIPO December 22, 2000)."
In this case the complainant has not contended that it has discovered evidence not reasonably available to it at the time of its Complaint, nor does the Response appear to have raised arguments that the complainant could not reasonably have anticipated. There appear to be no other exceptional circumstances that would justify admission of a Reply. For the same reasons, the panel does not request any further submission under Rule 12.
On June 14,1999, the Respondent, a professional scientist with degrees in physics and mathematics and an immigrant to the U.S.A. from Uzbekistan, became a customer of an electronic brokerage company which had been established in 1979, Waterhouse Securities, Inc., of 100 Wall Street, New York, trading as Waterhouse Webbroker ("the broker"). At about this time the Complainant acquired a majority interest in the broker, which changed its corporate name to TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc., its trading name to TD Waterhouse Webbroker and its domain name from "waterhouse.com" to "tdwaterhouse.com" to reflect its ownership by the Toronto-Dominion Bank. The domain name "tdwaterhouse.com" was registered by the Complainant on July 25, 1999.
The online brokerage service conducted at the domain name address "tdwaterhouse.com" has 2.2 million online accounts, and is the third-largest online brokerage in the United States.
On July 16, 1999, the Complainant filed United States service mark application for the mark TD WATERHOUSE, Appl. No. 75/759,863, for services including on-line discount brokerage services in the fields of stocks, bonds, mutual funds and related securities. It has corresponding registrations in the U.K., France and Benelux and applications in other countries.
A transaction occurring in September 1999 has given rise to a contractual dispute between the Respondent and the broker. The Respondent, having failed to obtain satisfaction from the broker and having found attempted arbitration at the Boston Stock Exchange impossible, reacted "towards Violence", which he sees as an inherited reaction, having regard to horrific experiences, dating back to World War I, of his grandfather, father, uncle, aunt, cousins and the father of the Respondent�s half-brother, involving numerous deaths [Response, page 13].
The Respondent saw "the only possible bloodless way" for him to respond to the brokers "insult" was "to attack it on the Internet for the purpose" of recovering money taken and damages ("satisfaction money"); to create a precedent for other customers and the general public to show "the way to take satisfaction without blood" and to make "WebFascism" (a term coined by the Respondent signifying violence on the Internet) unprofitable, by forcing the broker to give up WebFascism or be made bankrupt [Response, page 13].
Accordingly, the Respondent registered the domain names "tdwatergouse.com" on June 29, 2000, and "dwaterhouse.com" on October 15, 2000, and established identical websites at those addresses containing strong criticism of the broker, recounting his view of the dispute and of the conduct of the broker and raising the question whether the broker engages in WebFascism. The 13 web pages at each site compare the behaviour of the broker with that of the Nazis and include quotations from Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler.
By registering the disputed domain names and operating websites at those addresses, the Respondent intended to draw TD Waterhouse customers to his websites when they either misspell or err in typing "tdwaterhouse.com" [Response, page 17].
[The Complainant refers to the Complainant and its subsidiaries, including the broker, as "TD Waterhouse". That expression thus fails to distinguish between the bank and the broker. Nevertheless, it may be assumed that when the Complainant refers to the Complainant, it is referring to the bank].
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the TDWATERHOUSE mark in which the Complainant has exclusive rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in them and they were registered and are being used in bad faith.
"dwaterhouse.com" is virtually identical to "tdwaterhouse.com" except for the missing "T" in front of the domain name, and "tdwatergouse.com" is virtually identical to "tdwaterhouse.com " except for the "G" in place of the "H".
Respondent registered his confusingly similar domain names approximately one year after Complainant�s registration of "tdwaterhouse.com".
TD Waterhouse has not licensed the name and mark TD WATERHOUSE to Respondent, who does not have any right or authorization to include the TD WATERHOUSE name and mark as the address for his websites.
Further, Respondent has never been commonly known by the name TD WATERHOUSE or any variation thereof, and has never acquired any federal, state, or common law trademark or service mark rights in the name or any variation thereof.
Respondent is clearly intending to confuse TD Waterhouse customers and draw them to his websites when they either misspell or err in typing TD Waterhouse�s domain name address "tdwaterhouse.com". Respondent is using confusingly similar domain names to tarnish and malign Complainant and its reputation, and its TD WATERHOUSE name and mark.
Although Respondent does make commercial use out of his website as a result of the two links on his site, including an unauthorized link to "tdwaterhouse.com", Respondent�s use of the disputed domain names is not "bona fide" because he is using the domains to confuse consumers, and divert them to his website. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Doughney, 2000 U.S. Dist Lexis 9474 (E.D. Va.) (stating that one hyperlink to a Website with commercial use operations satisfies the commercial use requirement of the Lanham Act); AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtaobian, Case No. D2000-0937 (respondent has no legitimate interests in a website where domain names were registered in bad faith to divert users to respondent�s website).
Respondent wants to disrupt TD Waterhouse�s business, and drive it to bankruptcy. In particular, Respondent states that "[t]he violence must be made being very expensive, in order to drive TD Waterhouse Webbroker to bankruptcy, unless it has given the violence up."
Respondent specifically chose and registered the disputed domain names in bad faith and with the hope of tricking people into going to his websites. Clearly, Respondent�s domain names were registered with the intention of capitalizing on TD Waterhouse�s customers� mistakes and typos. If a TD Waterhouse customer mistyped the "tdwaterhouse.com " domain name by leaving out the "T" or types a "G" instead of an "H," then that customer is diverted unknowingly to Respondent�s website.
Indeed, similar sets of facts were presented in ICANN proceedings before the World Intellectual Property Organization in Est�e Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna, Case No. D2000-0869 and E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Hanna Law Firm, Case No. D2000-0615.
In accordance with paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(vii) [sic] of the Policy, clearly Respondent is not making fair use of Complainant�s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark, but instead has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith to disrupt and tarnish Complainant�s business, and its TD WATERHOUSE name and mark by confusing TD Waterhouse customers and diverting them from Complainant�s website to its own.
This episode is only a continuation of the main dispute between Boris Karpachev and the broker, which is not within the scope of the Policy.
The domain name is used by the broker, not the bank. So, for the purpose of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy, the bank does not have legitimate interests in respect of the domain name "tdwaterhouse.com". The broker does.
The Internet is developing very fast. The name "WebFascism" was used for the first time on the website at the disputed domain names. WebFascism is a new social phenomenon. There are not yet juridical means of recognizing it and there are no juridical remedies for it yet. Because of that Respondent tries to use all other possible legal means to defend his dignity (to take the satisfaction), compensation damages (for breach of contract) and return of his stolen property (money in the broker�s account).
The bank proposed to drop its claim for the debt made by the broker to the Respondent�s account in return for the transfer to it of the disputed domain names. The Respondent considers the Complaint to be Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Therefore the Respondent believes he has the moral right to double the amount of satisfaction money he requires.
"Complainant, through TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc. and its other subsidiaries (collectively "TD Waterhouse"), has used the TD WATERHOUSE name and mark over the past twenty years, since at least as early as 1979".
This is a false statement. The evidence shows the trademark "Waterhouse Securities, Inc." was first used in April 1979 but not TD WATERHOUSE. The applications for the trademark TD WATERHOUSE were filed and published for opposition not earlier than the second half of 1999. And the trademark TD WATERHOUSE is not available yet in the USA. So there is no legitimate ground for the complaint as the dispute has arisen in the USA.
The domain names are similar to the TD Waterhouse mark but not confusingly so. There is no confusion as the Respondent is not doing any business at his websites. So anyone coming to his website will not seek or have the services offered by the broker or the bank.
The Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial and fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent�s personal, noncommercial website under the disputed domain names, similar to "tdwaterhouse.com", was created and is being used with the purpose of obtaining compensation for damage caused by the broker, criticizing the broker (that uses "tdwaterhouse.com"), telling the Respondent�s personal experience and his attitude towards the incident that occurred, in order to let customers of the broker and the general public estimate the possible negative experience they may have while having relations with the broker. There is no lie on the website.
The Respondent has the right to register and use the disputed domain names under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Before the Complaint was filed, the Respondent became known by the name DWATERHOUSE - AntiWebFascism site.
By registering the disputed domain names and operating websites at those addresses, the Respondent is clearly intending to draw TD Waterhouse customers to his websites when they either misspell or err in typing TD Waterhouse�s domain name address "tdwaterhouse.com" but not intending to confuse them.
The Respondent does not make commercial use out of his websites. The second website under the domain name "mediamost.com" is far future project to help people of the USA and Russia (both are the Nuclear and Thermonuclear Super Powers) to get contacts accompanied with money flows in order to discharge the inevitable passions onto money not onto human lives. This is an Appeal to Humans not to die, not to end the Earth�s Biosphere, tiny island of Life in desert Universe. Respondent is planning to manage only webspace addressity at this project. The contacts, money flows, services are for others.
The use of the website under the disputed domain names is "bona fide", with the honorable purpose of defending personal dignity, recovering the property stolen and taking money damages.
The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in good faith.
The Respondent wants to disrupt TD Waterhouse�s WebFascism and drive it to bankruptcy if it has not given up webfascism. TD Waterhouse�s violence (as any violence) must be made very expensive in money amounts, as stated on the Respondent�s website.
The Respondent specifically chose and registered the disputed domain names in good faith to prevent the unlawful practice of the broker "allegedly refusing to compensate investors for losses suffered because of the trades". There was and is no intention of capitalizing at all.
I am not a competitor of the broker. I am its customer. I do not act in opposition to it, but in opposition to its allegedly refusing to compensate respondents for losses suffered because of unauthorized trades and unfair treatment.
There is no confusion, no bad faith, no confusingly similar, only similar.
The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in good faith to disrupt practicing Webfascism by the broker and to recover the Respondent�s damages and property. The TD WATERHOUSE name and mark are tarnished by the unlawful behavior of the broker. The bank should have a claim on the broker and pay damages to the Respondent.
There is nothing in the Rules about remedies available to a Respondent. This is inequality. The litigation process in the USA contains the possibility for defendant to make a counterclaim. As there is the possibility under the Rules of "submitting the dispute to a court"- Rule 4(k), and provision for a panel to "decide a complaint on � principles of law"- Rule 15(a), the Respondent has a legitimate right to make a countercomplaint, proposing remedies he considers appropriate, namely cancellation of the domain name "tdwaterhouse.com" or, better, suspension until the dispute between the Respondent and the broker has been resolved.
The complaint is Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The broker continues webfascism treatment of customers, and does not want them know that. The bank, owner of 88% of the broker�s outstanding shares, is trying to shut up the website under the disputed domain names by means of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, in order not to lose the market value of the broker ($5 - $10 billions).
The Policy and Rules provide, by means of contractual provisions incorporated in every Registration Agreement between ICANN-accredited domain-name registrars and domain name registrants, a mechanism for resolving disputes over the registration and use of domain names ending in .com, .net, .org and certain country-code top-level domains. The Policy does not exclude resort to litigation, arbitration or other proceeding. Its subject matter is limited, the remedies available are limited and the parties are limited to Complainants asserting rights in trade marks and Respondents with registered domain names.
The obligation of the panel under Rule 15(a) to apply "any rules and principles of law it deems applicable" is confined to the determination of complaints within these limitations. There is no provision for Respondents to make counterclaims or countercomplaints and the panel has no power to determine them. Respondents who assert that they have trade mark rights are free to initiate separate complaints under the Policy against Complainants who have registered domain names.
For these reasons, the panel has not summarized or reproduced the substance of the Respondent�s countercomplaint and has disregarded it, save to the extent that it sheds light on the issues for determination in this proceeding. It should be noted in this regard that, in responding to the Complaint and articulating his countercomplaint, the Respondent has adopted some of the Complainant�s assertions, usually with an important qualification. For example, in responding to the Complainant�s assertion (in paragraph 13) that "the Respondent�s domain names�are confusingly similar to Complainant�s famous name and mark", the Respondent says "There has to be: �Respondent�s Domain Names Are Similar to Complainant�s Name and Mark, but Not Confusingly�"[emphasis in the Response]. In such a case, the panel has taken it to be common ground that the disputed domain names are similar but that there is a dispute as to whether the similarity is confusing.
● the disputed domain name have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
As to the Respondent�s argument that, for the purpose of paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the Policy, the bank does not have legitimate interests in respect of the domain name "tdwaterhouse.com" but that the broker does, it is sufficient for the Complainant to prove it has rights in a trade mark. The argument is therefore not to the point.
The Respondent correctly points out that there is no evidence of use of the trade mark TD WATERHOUSE as early as 1979. On the material before the panel, having regard to the acquisition by the Complainant of the broker in about mid-1999, it is doubtful whether that mark was in use before the acquisition. Nevertheless, that mark appears to have been in widespread use in the USA, Canada and elsewhere from about mid-1999, including as part of the Complainant�s domain name "tdwaterhouse.com"(used by the broker, which is controlled by the Complainant). Having regard to the number of accounts of the broker and other undisputed assertions by the Complainant as to the size of its corporate group, activities and promotional expenditure, the panel is satisfied that the Complainant had established common law rights in and to the trade mark TD WATERHOUSE in the field of online broking in the USA and Canada before the respondent registered the disputed domain names. It is also relevant that the Complainant had been granted registered trade mark rights in that name and mark in other countries before filing its complaint.
The Respondent argues that because the application to register the trade mark in the United States has not yet been granted and the dispute arose there, the Complainant has no standing to bring this complaint.
There are two reasons why that argument cannot succeed: (1) the Policy affords protection to those having common law trademark rights (acquired through use) as well as to those having rights in registered trademarks: see, for example, David Gilmour, David Gilmour Music Limited and David Gilmour Music Overseas Limited v. Ermanno Cenicolla (D2000-1459) citing numerous cases including Cedar Trade Associates, Inc., v. Gregg Ricks (NAF93633); Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven S. Lafwani (D2000-0014); SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood (D2000-0131) and Passion Group Inc. v. Usearch, Inc. (AF-0250); and (2) it is not necessary under the Policy that the Complainant have trade mark rights in any particular country, so long as the Complainant has some trade mark rights.
It has been decided in many cases under the Policy that "essential" or "virtual" identity is sufficient for the purposes of the Policy: see The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc v. Cam Creek. Co., Inc, (WIPO case D2000-0113) and Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com (WIPO case D2000-0102).
US cases have adopted the same approach, see Sporty�s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman�s Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 497-98 (2d Cir. 2000) (the differences between the trademark "sporty�s" and the domain name "sportys.com" � specifically, an apostrophe in the trademark and the addition of .com in the domain name � are "inconsequential", such that the domain name is "indistinguishable" from and "certainly �confusingly similar� to the protected mark"); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (differences between the domain name "moviebuff.com" and the mark "MovieBuff" are "inconsequential"). See also Public Serv. Co. v. Nexus Energy Software, Inc., 36 F.Supp.2d 436 (D. Mass. 1999) ("energyplace.com" and "Energy Place" are virtually identical); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F.Supp.2d 1003, 1005 (D.Minn. 1998) ("post-it.com" and "Post-It" are the same); Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. EPIX, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1331, 1335 (D.Or. 1997)(epix.com "is the same mark" as EPIX); Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, No. 97-0629, 1997 WL 133313, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1997) ("planned-parenthood.com" and "Planned Parenthood" are essentially identical), aff�d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 834, 119 S.Ct. 90, 142 L.Ed.2d 71 (1998).
"It should be noted that when a trademark is composed in whole or in part of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL, nor the TLD (.com) have any source indicating significance. Those designations are merely devices that every Internet site provider must use as part of its address".
This applies equally where a domain name is composed in whole or in part of a trade mark.
The Respondent admits the disputed domain names are similar to the Complainant�s trade mark but denies they are confusingly similar, saying there is no confusion as the Respondent is not doing any business at his websites, so anyone coming to his website will not seek or have the services offered by the broker or the bank. However, the test for confusing similarity is confined to a consideration of the disputed domain name and the trade or service mark: Gateway, Inc., v. Pixelera.com, Inc. (WIPO case D2000-0109); The Forward Association (supra).
In terms of sight and sound, the domain names "tdwatergouse.com" and "dwaterhouse.com" are virtually identical to Complainant�s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark - only one letter differentiates Respondent�s domain names from TD WATERHOUSE.
Except for the missing "T" in front of the domain name, "dwaterhouse.com" is identical to "tdwaterhouse.com". Accordingly, if a TD Waterhouse customer were to mistype the "tdwaterhouse.com"domain name by leaving out the "T", that customer would be unknowingly directed to Respondent�s website. The same is true for the website at "tdwatergouse.com". If a TD Waterhouse customer makes a mistake and types in a "G" instead of an "H" when trying to reach the "tdwaterhouse.com" website, the customer will arrive at Respondent�s website. Not surprisingly, the letter "G" is directly next to the letter "H" on standard computer keyboards. Thus, it is easy for a customer to tap the "G" by mistake, and arrive at Respondent�s website.
The Respondent accepts that by registering the disputed domain names and operating websites at those addresses, the Respondent is clearly intending to draw TD Waterhouse customers to his websites when they either misspell or err in typing TD Waterhouse�s domain name address "tdwaterhouse.com". However, the Respondent denies intending to confuse them.
In determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark, the intention of the domain name registrant is irrelevant. It is the objective likelihood of confusion that must be assessed. The panel finds that the disputed domain names are likely to attract customers of the broker seeking to access the broker�s website who misspell or err in typing the domain address they seek. The close misspellings at issue here are confusingly similar to the Complainant�s mark. See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/ka Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, ( D2000-0330); Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, (D2000-0362).
The panel finds that the disputed domain names "tdwatergouse.com" and "dwaterhouse.com" are essentially identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademark TD WATERHOUSE. The Complainant has established this element.
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the TD WATERHOUSE name and mark nor to include that mark in any domain names.
Insofar as the Respondent is using the domain names to divert customers of the broker to his websites as a means of recovering money he claims was misappropriated by the broker in the commercial transaction which gave rise to the wider dispute of which this domain name dispute forms part, the panel finds such use is commercial and cannot be regarded as legitimate under subparagraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. It is unnecessary for the panel to consider the Complainant�s argument based on the link on the Respondent�s websites to the Complainant�s website.
In the instant case, Respondent is using as its identifier the domain name "montyroberts.net". When an Internet user searches for Complainant�s mark, it will find Respondent�s website address. There is nothing in the domain name to indicate that the site is devoted to criticism of Complainant, even though this criticism is apparent upon visiting Respondent�s site. By using Complainant�s mark, Respondent diverts Internet traffic to its own site, thereby potentially depriving Complainant of visits by Internet users".
Those remarks are of equal force in this case and dispose of the Respondent�s First Amendment argument. See also Est�e Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna, (D2000-0869) and E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Hanna Law Firm, (D2000-0615).
The Respondent says that before the Complaint was filed, the Respondent became known by the name DWATERHOUSE - AntiWebFascism site. It is unclear whether the Respondent is here seeking to invoke subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of Policy 4(c), since this assertion appears to run parts of each together.
Subparagraph (i) requires a showing of use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain names, before notice of the dispute, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent asserts both sites are noncommercial and accordingly makes no claim to offer goods or services.
Subparagraph (ii) requires a showing that a Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name and does not require this to have been the case before any notice of the dispute.
The issue arises whether this subparagraph should be interpreted as referring only to registrants having been known by the domain name before they registered it, or whether registrants may demonstrate legitimacy by reason of use of the very domain name in dispute.
It is unnecessary to resolve that issue in this case because the reference to the Respondent on the "dwaterhouse.com" website (as a customer of the broker, "author Boris Karpachev") would not necessarily convey to the reader that the Respondent is associated with the domain name or the author of the website, let alone that he is known by the name DWATERHOUSE. The panel is not satisfied that the Respondent is known by the name DWATERHOUSE. The Respondent has not claimed that he is known by the name TDWATERGOUSE.
The Respondent says that, by registering the disputed domain names and operating websites at those addresses, the Respondent is clearly intending to draw TD Waterhouse customers to his websites when they either misspell or err in typing TD Waterhouse�s domain name address "tdwaterhouse.com" but not intending to confuse them. The panel does not regard this as establishing that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
The Respondent says his use of the website under the disputed domain names is "bona fide", with the honorable purpose of defending personal dignity, recovering the property stolen and taking money damages. The panel rejects this as a basis for claiming a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. The broker has no opportunity to state its side of the issues in dispute; the Respondent seeks to exert pressure on the broker and the Complainant by the content of his websites, to which he intentionally diverts customers of the broker by the use of domain names which those customers might enter by mistake. No matter how sincerely the Respondent believes in the righteousness of his cause, resort to such trickery does not deserve the appellation honorable nor does it justify a finding of a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
The panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in either of the disputed domain names.
There is no evidence of circumstances within subparagraphs 4(b)(i) or (ii) of the Policy.
The Respondent says he specifically chose and registered the disputed domain names in good faith to prevent the unlawful practice of the broker "allegedly refusing to compensate investors for losses suffered because of the trades". The panel rejects this as demonstrating absence of bad faith for the same reason it rejects it as establishing a legitimate interest.
"Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, a finding by the Panel that Respondent has "registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor" is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Respondent argues that that paragraph of the Policy is not applicable because Complainant and Respondent are not "competitors". This is true in the sense that the parties do not sell competing products, but the definition of competitors is not so restricted in the Policy. This Panel adopts and agrees with the broader meaning that was assigned to the word "competitor" in Mission Kwa Sizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, Case No. D2000-0279 (" �competitor� is one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor"); Accord, Gallo v. Hanna Law Firm, Case No. D2000-0615. The fact that the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, unlike those of paragraph 4(b)(iv), do not require that a party be motivated by "commercial gain", further supports the fact that the genre of competition referred to need not be commercial."
This panel finds that the respondent�s opposition to the practices of the broker, which he criticizes, is sufficient to qualify him for the description of "competitor". The Respondent says he wants to disrupt TD Waterhouse�s WebFascism and drive it to bankruptcy if it has not given up webfascism. "TD Waterhouse�s violence (as any violence) must be made very expensive in money amounts", as stated on the Respondent�s website. This suffices to establish that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, within the meaning of subparagraph 4(b)(iii).
The use of misspellings alone is sufficient to prove bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because Respondent has used these names intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by making a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant�s mark".
The panel has found that the domain names are being used for the commercial gain of recovering money said to have been misappropriated in a commercial transaction. The panel finds the requirements of this subparagraph satisfied.
Accordingly, the Complainant has proved that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Respondent claims the Complaint constitutes an attempt at domain name hijacking. This is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." See also Rule 15(e). To prevail on such a claim, Respondent must show that Complainant knew of Respondent�s unassailable right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or the clear lack of bad faith registration and use, and nevertheless brought the Complaint in bad faith. See, e.g., Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Ltd., (D2000-1224) and Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line (D2000-1151). In Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, (D2000-0993) bad faith was found to encompass both malicious intent and recklessness or knowing disregard of the likelihood that the Respondent possessed legitimate interests.
The complaint having been upheld, the Respondent cannot succeed on this point.
Pursuant to paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the panel requires the domain names "tdwatergouse.com" and "dwaterhouse.com" to be transferred to the Complainant.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.