Legislation Has Been Introduced Pennsylvania Is On: Fill & Download for Free

There’s an interesting dilemma in this resolution.First, let’s point out that a “resolution” has no force of law. It’s just Republican legislators showboating.But what if they could get a law passed declaring the election in PA “in dispute”? Well, they’d have just eliminated the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.You see, it’s Saturday, November 28 as I write this. The terms of every Pennsylvania state Representative and half the Senators expires on November 30, and the legislature normally ends the session at that point and a new legislature is convened on January 3. Now, the Governor can call for a special session of the legislature, but there’s a catch.If the election that determines the makeup of the new House has been declared “in dispute”, that would mean that until the dispute was settled there would be no lawful members of the Pennsylvania House and only half the members of the Senate would be lawful.I wonder if any of the current Republican legislators currently thinking they’ve won re-election have thought about that. I wouldn’t bet on it.

It won’t pass.It’s being pushed for the same reason that President Trump is so adamant about his wall: to allow the people who introduced it and who vote for it to keep a campaign promise.That campaign promise is utterly unrealistic.The only way gun sales regulations work today is through a combination of two provisions of the U.S. Constitution:The Commerce ClauseArticle I, Section 8, Clause 3:[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;The Supremacy ClauseArticle VI, Clause 2:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.When taken in combination, this allows regulation of new firearms produced outside the U.S., and produced in one U.S. state, and sold in another U.S. state.It’s gross overreach to try to apply these in the same way to private sales.This is why so many people are arrested for transporting marijuana across state lines, from Colorado into neighboring states.It’s also why a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons) permit issued in Pennsylvania doesn’t have to be honored in New Jersey, and there are people in jail even for weapons which were in plain sight, just for bringing them into New Jersey.If that’s true, then why aren’t California’s gun laws unconstitutional?They are.Here’s how California gets away with them anyway:Pass an unconstitutional lawArrest someone and confiscate weaponsConvict personDestroy weapons, which are no longer evidentiary in naturePerson appealsCalifornia declines to prosecute further, and person “wins” appeal without it becoming binding case lawIn other words, it never reaches an appellate level, even if they smack you down pretty hard.And so it never reaches the level at which it becomes binding case law, or at which it could be tries by the U.S. Supreme Court, because they’re going to decline the writ of certiorari because it has yet to be tried by a lowed court.States can actually get away with a lot of unconstitutional things this way. It’s a well known legal loophole.The federal government, not so much.If this law is passed at the federal level, the first case where it’s enforced will result in it being struck down as unconstitutional.Everyone involved knows this already; they are just keeping their campaign promise to introduce the legislation; they never promised that it would be possible to actually keep such a law on the books, even if it’s introduced, and even if it passes.Ideally, the Republicans would help pass it, and Trump would sign it, and then two people would invite the FBI and local law enforcement to a press conference, and a lot of the press,And then they’d engage in a transaction which was 100%, guaranteed, perfectly legal before the law was passed, and which violated no other state or federal law.Ideally, the buyer will have had a previous purchase, in which they passed a background check, and they were merely involved in a private purchase that would, had they submitted to the check, been considered legal.And then they’d have all the paperwork already set up to challenge the law, and get it in an appellate court which was cooperative in upholding the illegality of the sale, and then it’d go to the Supreme Court.And get struck downMaking the people who introduced the law in the first place look like either lying asshats, or merely incompetent law writers, to their constituents.Unfortunately, the Republicans are probably going to leave them with a “Well, we tried, but those darn Republicans!”, or with a “We tried, but that evil President Trump!” as an excuse.But seriously?Unconstitutional. Shouldn’t have been introduced. Shouldn’t pass.

I think it’s a sleazy bill that is (I admit) cleverly finding a way to ignore the Constitution. The fact that so many legislators that vowed to protect the Constitution have supported it is rather sickening.But let’s look at how likely it is to be passed. The idea that states like Montana, Wyoming, Iowa, the Dakotas, etc. would vote for this plan is rather laughable. The entire point of the electoral college is for those states. TL;DR: It doesn’t look like it has a good chance of passing.So, let’s break this down. Here are the states that have approved this plan so far:DC, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, NJ, Washington, Vermont, California, RI, and NY, totaling 181 electoral votes. The plan does not go into affect until they get 270 electoral votes on it. So they need another 89. Before we go into how they could possibly get the remaining 89, I’d like to point out that, unsurprisingly, all of those states voted for Clinton. It seems likely they’re voting to uphold this bill out of bitterness for having lost elections. In fact, also not surprisingly, of these 13 states, only Colorado has gone red once in the past 4 presidential elections. I find it a little odd that RI, Vermont, and Hawaii voted for it even in spite of that, though, since the EC is specifically in place to protect them. But, well, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a powerful disease.So, onto how they could possibly get 89. Let’s first be realistic. Conservative states aren’t going to vote for this, because we actually care about the Constitution, and this bill is a clever way of destroying part of it without actually having to make an amendment. So, that takes red states off the table. So Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, both Dakotas, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia are all off the table. Also, we will add New Mexico and Delaware, as it has passed the state legislators there and been passed to the governors. Delaware’s governor Carney has apparently indicated he intends to sign it. I don’t know New Mexico governor Grisham’s views on it, but for the sake of the bill, we’ll assume she supports it and will sign it. So, if we look at this like an election (which it practically is, as they have to get 270 to activate the bill), this is what we have so far (for the bill in blue, against in red, for obvious reasons):So, the bill now only needs 81 votes more. For simplicity’s sake, let’s look at the remaining states over 15 votes: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. All of my suppositions will be pulled from the website for the NPV Plan and its status in states: Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State. In Michigan, it passed the House way back in 2008. However, it has recently been sponsored by 25 of Michigan’s 38 senators. Assuming all senators that sponsor it will vote yes on it, then it will likely pass the Senate. For the bill’s sake, we’ll assume it passes the House again and goes to governor Whitmer. Again, she has not expressed any public views that I can find about the EC vs. national popular vote, but we’ll assume she votes yes, for a best case scenario for the bill. That puts it at 205 votes.In Ohio, it hasn’t gone far. At all. It was introduced in 2017, and never heard. It was introduced again last year, and never heard. It went to a House committee earlier this month, and has not been approved even by that committee yet. It has some support from House democrats, but no House Republicans have shown any support for it. Considering the House has a pretty big Republican majority (62%), I would say no Republican support thus far doesn’t mean good things for it in Ohio. So we’ll assume Ohio won’t vote for it.In Pennsylvania, the bill hasn’t gone far there either. It was introduced to the House in early 2017. It hasn’t even gone to committee yet. So it’s unlikely Pennsylvania will support it either.In Florida, the bill has been introduced and ignored no less than 4 times in one or the other branch of legislature. The most recent action was that it was introduced (again) in February to the House. Considering there has literally been no reason to think it will go any further than it has the last couple times it was introduced, I don’t think the bill has positive aspects in Florida, either.So, now, we have this:Virginia and North Carolina are now vital to keep the bill off life support. So, let’s check those states.In Virginia, the bill has gone the same way as Florida. Introduced and ignored multiple times. Ouch.In North Carolina, things look a tad brighter, but not much. It passed the Senate, but that was way back in 2007. The most recent action was that it was introduced again in the Senate last month. It passed the first reading, then went to committee. It hasn’t been heard of since. But, for the best case scenario for the bill, let’s just assume it passes the Senate and goes to the House. Assuming all the democrats vote for it there, they only need 6 republicans to vote for it. The bill has gotten bipartisan support in multiple places so far, so it’s not out of the question that they get that as well. Then it goes to the governor. Cooper hasn’t given any indication of his views on the subject, but he seems like he would support it. So yay for the bill in NC. Keep in mind this part is very, very optimistic though, as it hasn’t technically gone anywhere yet.So now the map looks like this:We’re now at the point that if Indiana, Wisconsin, or Minnesota don’t support the bill, it’s sunk. It has not even been formally heard in any of those three states. So to assume that the bill would be supported in all three is beyond optimistic.So, in conclusion, the bill looks like it will not be able to pass any time soon.