Anti-gun legislation has moved from the PA House to Senate

[ArmedDragon]

OK, so, I don't think any element of PA government is pro 2A, or conservative,
or constitutionally conservative. Not today. I don't count on it at all.
Some individuals may be, but their numbers seem to be dwindling.

Post Heller, MacDonald, and Bruen, I would be more hopeful about SCOTUS.

So you think the short term is going to be a lot of legislative restrictions we haven't had before, followed by years long cases to win them back?

[EFK]

So you think the short term is going to be a lot of legislative restrictions we haven't had before, followed by years long cases to win them back?

I can't speak for him but my answer would be, "yes." The PA Supreme Court is already a massive problem; the very fact that they have not struck out the willy-nilly mail in voting that is clearly unconstitutional as I interpret the PA Constitution is a case in point. Another huge problem are house and senate legislators who while claiming to be Republican have no spine or backbone and might as well be democrats. PA has long been a holdout of semi-sanity in the northeast but I suspect it's coming to an end.

[Curmudgeon]

So you think the short term is going to be a lot of legislative restrictions we haven't had before, followed by years long cases to win them back?

We're already seeing this in other states, bold-faced pushback anti 2A legislation. Some of it has been successfully signed into law, and it seems much of it has not. But yeah, the battle continues and likely will continue so long as there are politicians thinking they can curry favor with their constituents/voters with this hot button issue.

[ArmedDragon]

What part of the PA Constitution makes mail in voting unconstitutional? Historically it mostly benefits rural conservative districts. Trump's attack on it was F'ing stupid since he shot his party in the foot with trotting it out as fraudulent/rigged/etc...

I'm rather tired of seeing conservatives attack things that help them using misinformation touted by that idiot but I'd rather keep the topic on the risk to our gun rights

[mikelets456]

What part of the PA Constitution makes mail in voting unconstitutional? Historically it mostly benefits rural conservative districts. Trump's attack on it was F'ing stupid since he shot his party in the foot with trotting it out as fraudulent/rigged/etc...

I'm rather tired of seeing conservatives attack things that help them using misinformation touted by that idiot but I'd rather keep the topic on the risk to our gun rights

Not sure you're 100% correct on this:

"Commonwealth Court Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt agreed with that argument, writing the law violates the 1838 amendment that says a person must vote in-person on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. She wrote the law can only be changed through another constitutional amendment.

*No-excuse mail-in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania,* Leavitt wrote."

*If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can *be placed upon our statute books*,* she added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...onstitutional/

[Curmudgeon]

We used mail-in voting in this last Primary, and the form asked questions about
why we wanted/needed to use mail. But it did not require proof or evidence.
Just a checkbox.

[gghbi]

Not sure you're 100% correct on this:

"Commonwealth Court Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt agreed with that argument, writing the law violates the 1838 amendment that says a person must vote in-person on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. She wrote the law can only be changed through another constitutional amendment.

*No-excuse mail-in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania,* Leavitt wrote."

*If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can *be placed upon our statute books*,* she added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...onstitutional/

The current act 77 was not a constitutional amendment, thus is illegal...

[ArmedDragon]

Not sure you're 100% correct on this:

"Commonwealth Court Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt agreed with that argument, writing the law violates the 1838 amendment that says a person must vote in-person on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. She wrote the law can only be changed through another constitutional amendment.

*No-excuse mail-in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania,* Leavitt wrote."

*If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can *be placed upon our statute books*,* she added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...onstitutional/

Ah that's what I wanted to know. How the PA Constitution affects it. My knowledge is more nation-wide regarding this topic.

[mikelets456]

Where is this now? Is the senate bringing this up for discussion?

[31ST MEUSOC]

Yeah what was the outcome is was their one?