Saying it promotes a “shoot first and ask questions later” mentality, Rendell has vetoed HB1926, Castle Doctrine. He’s also awfully disappointed the Senate rejected the “Florida Loophole” amendment. We’ll have to go through this all next year folks. The fat man has quacked on this one.
Category: Pennsylvania
Don’t Feed the Bears
Apparently some folks are upset about a bear named Bozo being killed during this year five day archery bear season, after a man fed the bear for 17 years. As far as I’m concerned the hunters performed a public service, and the guy who fed him needs to stop his whining and be thankful he’s not getting fined. Wild animals habituated to being fed by humans are potentially dangerous.
New Jersey is finally going ahead with a bear hunt after several years of not having one, due to Corzine caving to animal rights whack jobs. I expect this coming bear hunt is going to be protested.
Deadline Approaches for Castle Doctrine
Rendell has until tomorrow. The clock is ticking. So far, no veto. If we don’t see a veto by tomorrow, Castle Doctrine is law. Here’s hoping.
Fast Eddie Signs 22 Bills into Law
Castle Doctrine is not among them. He has until Saturday to veto or it becomes law.
Wasting Taxpayer Dollars in Allentown
Our Interview with John Hohenwarter
You’ve all been very patient in waiting for this, so here it is. My interview with John Hohenwarter, NRA’s Pennsylvania State Liaison. My questions are bolded, with John’s answers in italics. Hopefully I managed to cover enough ground that people will be reasonably pleased with the questions and answers.
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to talk to my readers today. Can you tell us a bit about yourself, and your history with the gun rights issue here in Pennsylvania?
I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and currently reside in Lancaster County.  I’m a lifelong gun owner, hunter and shooting enthusiast.  I’m married and the father of three future hunters.  My professional experience is in the government relations field for the past 18 years, 12 years with NRA and six years for the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.
The big question on everyone’s mind is Castle Doctrine. It’s been a long, hard fight to get it, but it’s finally on the way to the Governor. Can you describe the difficulties that were encountered getting this bill through to final passage?
Over the last several legislative sessions, there have been a number of hurdles with this legislation involving the House, Senate and Governor’s Office. This session, “Castle Doctrine†legislation was introduced in both chambers – HB40 (Perry-R) and SB842 (Alloway-R).  Both pieces of legislation were stymied in committee during most of the legislative session.
Over the last several weeks there has been much misinformation concerning NRA activity with this legislation.  Therefore, I think it is important to share with your readers a brief overview of what occurred with “Castle Doctrine†over the last several months and ILA’s roll in the process.
In May of this year, Chairman Caltagirone made good on his commitment to allow a House Judiciary Committee vote on House Bill 40.  The legislation was voted out of committee and referred to the House Appropriations Committee where it remained blocked for several months by Chairman Evans.
Because Chairman Evans refused to move the bill, Representative Perry filed a discharge petition to force a committee vote to move the bill.  However, before the discharge petition had the opportunity to be voted by the House, Chairman Evans agreed to a House Appropriations Committee vote that resulted in the legislation being passed and moved out of committee and placed on the House Calendar.
During this time frame, NRA was also working on an alternative plan in the Senate by advocating a “Castle Doctrine†amendment to HB1926.  This plan of attack was supported by Senator Alloway, who agreed to offer the amendment, and was seconded by some members of the Senate Republican leadership team.  Not knowing the future of HB40 in the House, this course of action would allow another option to pass the measure before the end of the legislative session.
However, NRA had opposition from some leaders in the Senate who were uncooperative in this effort despite intense lobbying efforts and overall support by a majority of the members of the Senate.  In fact, NRA had a commitment from House democratic leadership on concurrence if the Senate would send the bill to the House.  The reason the House agreed to this process was because of the high probability that a House floor flight would occur on HB40 opening the door to a flurry of bad amendments. Unfortunately at the time, the Senate did not cooperate with this effort.
So with time running out, NRA continued to lobby the House to pass HB40.  Finally, the Democratic House Leadership agreed to forge ahead and scheduled a vote.  The bill was passed by the House on October 5th and sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Now the stage was set for a battle in the Senate and it was time to turn up the heat.
With only three days left on the Senate schedule, there were now two options available. Our office decided that the first option would be to pursue a Committee vote on HB40 and send a clean bill to the Governor’s Office.  However, this option had to occur on Tuesday, October 12th of the following week because of Constitution provisions that require a bill to be considered on three different days before being voted on the floor.
NRA was assured by Republican leadership that a vote would occur in committee on Tuesday to allow a sufficient time period for legislative consideration.  However, amendments were now being drafted and efforts were underway to amend HB40 in committee with anti-gun/anti-hunting provisions.  In addition, Republican support to kill the amendments in committee continued to dwindle throughout the day, which created a rift among Republican members.
Less than 10 minutes before the committee vote, Senator Alloway and I had a meeting off the Senate floor with Republican leadership concerning the pending vote.  At that time, our concerns were confirmed that HB40 was in jeopardy and the committee did not have the support to kill several amendments filed to the bill.  It was at that time the decision was made by Senate leadership to pursue the second option, which was to amend HB1926 and battle the amendments on the floor where they could be defeated.
Fortunately, the amendment process for Castle Doctrine was successful and the anti-gun amendment (Florida Loophole) offered by Senator Leach was defeated and all other amendments were withdrawn.  House Bill 1926 was passed and sent to the House for concurrence.  And as we all now know, the House concurred this week on the measure sending it to the Governor for approval.
There has been considerable criticism over the decision to amend HB1926 with Castle Doctrine rather than pushing through HB40, can you explain what the reasoning was there?
This is as an example of the misinformation that I was referring to earlier. If House Bill 40 would have been voted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Florida Loophole†would have been amended into the bill by a vote of 8-6 and there is a good possibility that mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms, as well as a ban on pigeon shoots, would have be amended into the measure as well.  The following would have been the roll call vote on the Senator Leach’s “Florida Loophole†amendment in committee based upon the roll call that was taken on the Senate floor on the same amendment:
| YES VOTES Greenleaf, Stewart J. , Chair White, Mary Jo, Vice Chair Leach, Daylin , Minority Chair Browne, Patrick M. Earll, Jane M. Costa, Jay Fontana, Wayne D. Stack, Michael J. |
NO VOTES Boscola, Lisa M. Gordner, John R. Orie, Jane Clare Piccola, Jeffrey E Rafferty, John C., Jr. Scarnati, Joseph B., III, ex-officio |
Therefore, a decision was made by Republican Leadership to avoid the committee process and vote down the same amendments filed to HB1926 on the floor.  This course of action could still get a bill to the Governor’s desk since the House had 5 days scheduled for session after the November election.  Keep in mind, without NRA orchestrating an “Option 2â€, “Castle Doctrine†would have died that week in the Senate.
However, it is unfortunate that there was a breakdown in the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee which ultimately killed HB40.  As a result, the NRA-PVF lowered grades and removed endorsements from sitting Senators who were up for election this cycle.
Any word on whether Rendell signs or vetoes the bill?
At this time,  no one knows what Governor Rendell will do.  I do believe that a veto is being considered and I ask all NRA members, gun owners and anyone else who values self-defense contact the Governor’s Office.
The Senate certainly presented some obstacles for getting Castle Doctrine passed. Any fear that the political climate in the Senate could get worse for gun rights? What are some things activists can do to help?
After going through this latest exercise in the Senate, we need to solidify support for a pro-gun agenda in the Republican Caucus.  NRA members and gun owners should contact their Senator between now and next year to reaffirm their support for protecting the 2nd Amendment.
There has been criticism by some that NRA hasn’t worked well with other organizations here in PA. Is NRA willing to work with other groups?
Contrary to the criticism, NRA makes it a point to work with grassroots organizations not only in Pennsylvania but around the country.  We are fortunate to have some outstanding activists and organizations in the state that make the phone calls, write the letters, and otherwise engage with their elected officials.  These individuals make our job a lot easier.
I know at times it can be frustrating to some activists that not all the insider information is shared with the grassroots.  However, this is not always possible, and most activists recognize the nature of the business.  In fact, NRA’s legislative strategy is often so sensitive that wide knowledge could jeopardize the final outcome.
For example, when HB40 came up for a vote on the House floor, only a few people knew that Republican leadership intended use House Rule 61 to cut off debate.   Our office was privy to this information; however, to send out an alert about this tactic would have jeopardized the legislation.
At the end of the day it’s about getting the job done and not about who gets the credit and I believe most activists and organizations are on the same page.
There are a lot of other issues facing Pennsylvania once we get Castle Doctrine passed. Can you discuss what might be future legislative priorities?
As you know, there are a number of issues on the horizon affecting gun owners and sportsmen in Pennsylvania.  For example, the usefulness of PICS, problems associated with lawful transportation of firearms, strengthening of the preemption statute and many others.  Our office will be looking at all these issues and others to prioritize our efforts for the next session.
Thanks for taking the time to talk to my readers today, and I hope we can get an opportunity to do this again sometime.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues and look forward to a successful 2011-12 legislative session.
Good News from the PA House
The Pennsylvania House Democrats gave the boot to Dwight Evans as ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, and replaced him with NRA A-rated Democrat Joe Markosek. Our buddy Dwight sat on Castle Doctrine for quite some time, which prevented it from getting out of the House until quite late in the session. I’m glad to see the Pennsylvania Democrats gave him the boot. Even though the Dems will be in the minority in the next session, being Minority Chair is still a powerful position. This is a rebuke of Evans’ poor leadership in the House, and should be welcome news to Pennsylvania gun owners.
UPDATE: I should point out that the ranking Republican on Appropriations is D+ rated William Adolph, from Delaware County. It just goes to show that when it comes to the RKBA, politics in Pennsylvania doesn’t divide neatly by party. We have plenty of Democratic friends on this issue in Pennsylvania, along side plenty of less than stellar Republicans.
Is PA Castle Doctrine Law Constitutional?
One of the big arguments about pushing the HB1926 route is that it runs into problems with Article III, Section 3, which says:
No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.
The short answer is there’s a pretty good case to be made for constitutionality, but that it’s not a slam dunk. The case law on this goes back more than a hundred years, and there’s enough of it that our opponents could find an argument to make. But there’d be a very strong case favoring Castle Doctrine’s constitutionality. A more recent case, you get quotes like this:
In broad terms, Article III’s aim was to “place restraints on the legislative process and encourage an open, deliberative, and accountable government.” City of Philadelphia, 838 A.2d at 585 (quoting Pennsylvania AFL-CIO ex rel. George v. Commonwealth, 563 Pa. 108, 757 A.2d 917, 923 (2000)). More specifically, Section 3 was designed to curb the practice of inserting into a single bill a number of distinct and independent subjects of legislation and purposefully hiding the real purpose of the bill. City of Philadelphia, 838 A.2d at 586. Related thereto, the single subject requirement prohibits the attachment of riders that could not become law as is, to popular legislation that would pass. An additional benefit of the Section 3 requirements is that there will be a greater probability that a bill containing a single topic will be more likely to receive a considered review than a multi-subject piece of legislation. Id., citing Millard H. Ruud, No Law Shall Embrace More Than One Subject, 42 Minn. L.Rev. 389, 391 (1958)(offering that an additional purpose served by the one-subject rule is to facilitate orderly legislative procedure). As we indicated in City of Philadelphia, the single subject requirement proscribed the inclusion of provisions into legislation without allowing for “fair notice to the public and to legislators of the existence of the same.” *296 City of Philadelphia, 838 A.2d at 587. Thus, reasonable notice is the keystone of Article III, Section 3.
Emphasis mine. I think this would tend to favor Castle Doctrine being constitutional, since legislators were given fair notice as to what they were voting for, and what was in the bill. You also have this from a footnote:
While recognizing the importance of Section 3, we acknowledged that bills are frequently subject to amendments as they proceed through the legislative process and not every supplementation of new material is violative of the Constitution. Thus, “where the provisions added during the legislative process assist in carrying out a bill’s main objective or are otherwise ‘germane’ to the bill’s subject as reflected in its title,” the requirements of Article III, Section 3 are met. Id. Article III, Section 3 must have, however, some limits on germaneness, for otherwise virtually all legislation-no matter how diverse in substance-would meet the single-subject requirement, rendering the strictures of Section 3 nugatory. As stated by our Court in Payne v. School Dist. of Coudersport Borough, 168 Pa. 386, 31 A. 1072, 1074 (1895), “no two subjects are so wide apart that they may not be brought into a common focus, if the point of view be carried back far enough.” Thus, defining the constitutionally-valid topic too broadly would render the safeguards of Section 3 inert. Conversely, the requirements of Section 3 must not become a license for **396 the judiciary to “exercise a pedantic tyranny” over the efforts of the Legislature. City of Philadelphia, 838 A.2d at 588 (citing Estate of Rochez, 511 Pa. 620, 515 A.2d 899, 902 (1986)). Indeed, “[f]ew bills are so elementary in character that they may not be subdivided under several heads….” Payne, 31 A. at 1074.
Emphasis mine again. So the Courts have said it can’t be read so broadly as to be meaningless, but that it is not an excuse for the judiciary to “exercise a pedantic tyranny” over the efforts of the Legislature. Given that these two subjects in HB1926 both deal with criminal law and criminal procedure, and self-defense can be tangentially related to kidnapping, I think there’s a pretty solid case that can be made that HB1926 is constitutional.
Will Rendell Sign?
That’s the million dollar question. I wouldn’t care to take any bets on it. There are factors playing in both directions. Ed is a thoroughly lame duck, so your standard political calculations may not apply. He’s going to piss off an awful lot of Democrats if he vetoes, and I don’t know what kind of role Rendell wants in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party following his term as Governor. If he’s heading into his political sunset, he may do it just as a departing “screw you.”
There’s also the issue that a veto of Castle Doctrine is also a veto in favor of child molesters. More than a few state reps flipped on the concurrence vote because of that. Rendell’s line item veto is only valid for appropriations measures. He has to take this bill as a whole otherwise, so there’s no line item vetoing Castle Doctrine and letting the sex offender provision become law. I think it’s probably a safe bet Rendell will not sign the bill, but whether he’ll allow it to become law by waiting the required ten days, we’ll know on Thanksgiving. Let’s hope that on Thanksgiving, we can toast victory in Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrine Live
Being debated in the House right now. It would appear there will be a vote on it, which I believe will end up going in our favor. For live coverage of the debate, you can follow @PAGunRights on Twitter. Â Bitter will be covering the debate, which she is watching live. Here’s hoping we’ll get to see some cane waving legislators on the floor like we did last time.
UPDATE: It has PASSED! 161-35, and is headed to Governor Rendell.