Bill to allow for Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania passes House
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — A bill that would repeal the state's Sunday hunting ban has made its way through the House.
The bill was introduced by Representative Mandy Steele (D-Allegheny) and has gained support from some lawmakers alongside the Game Commission. House Bill 1431 has now passed through the House with a 131-72 vote. It's headed to the Senate for their consideration.
The bill would end the state's prohibition on Sunday hunting and allow the Game Commission to include Sundays when establishing hunting seasons. The Game Commission noted that there have been Sunday hunting opportunities for foxes, coyotes and crows, but it is otherwise prohibited.
'The initiative to repeal the ban has a broad base of support behind it. Many sportsmen's groups back the proposal, as does the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. The Game Commission has been working with this coalition to get the bill across the finish line, an outcome that would benefit hunters and help ensure the future of wildlife management,' according to a release from the Game Commission.
You can keep up to date with the bill's progress here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate parliamentarian greenlights state AI law freeze in GOP megabill
The Senate's rules referee late Saturday allowed Republicans to include in their megabill a 10-year moratorium on enforcing state and local artificial intelligence laws — a surprising result for the provision that's split the GOP. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) rewrote a House-passed AI moratorium to try to comply with the chamber's budgetary rules. His version made upholding the moratorium a condition for receiving billions in federal broadband expansion funds. Both parties made their arguments before the parliamentarian Thursday. 'It's good policy,' Cruz said of the moratorium in a recent interview. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) has also defended the provision, saying it's necessary to avoid a 'labyrinth of regulation' with '50 different states going 50 different directions on the topic of AI regulation.' Though the parliamentarian delivered a victory for Republicans, a number of conservative senators including Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), have vocally opposed the provision. Hawley has vowed to work with Democrats on an amendment to remove the language once the megabill hits the floor. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and the House Freedom Caucus have also opposed the AI moratorium, with Greene threatening to oppose the megabill H.R. 1 (119) if the legal freeze remains.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Congress exists': Bay Area lawmakers deride Trump's decision to bomb Iran as unlawful
Bay Area congressional Democrats condemned the U.S. bombing of nuclear sites in Iran Saturday, saying President Donald Trump overstepped his authority and thrust the country into another risky Middle East conflict. Gov. Gavin Newsom said California's State Threat Assessment Center is monitoring for potential impacts in the state. 'While there are no specific or credible counter threats we are aware of at this time, we urge everyone to stay vigilant and report suspicious activity,' he tweeted. 'Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,' House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi posted on X. 'I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.' Rep. Ro Khanna said on X called on congressional leaders to return to Washington to pass a resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.' After announcing the attack on social media Saturday afternoon, Trump said during a speech at the White House Saturday night that the bombings of the Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan sites had been 'a spectacular military success' that 'totally obliterated' the targets. Other Democratic politicians voiced concern with the escalation of the conflict with Iran, while Republicans backed up Trump's move. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, called Trump's action 'an act of war,' that could lead to 'terrible consequences for our troops, our national security, the Middle East region, and what's left of our global credibility.' Huffman said there were smarter ways to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. 'This is a dark day for the Constitution and for peace,' Huffman said. Khanna and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Antioch, both pushed members of Congress to return to session to pass Khanna's War Powers Resolution, co-sponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican. The resolution aims to limit the president's power to commit the United States to armed conflict. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Castro Valley, said Congress 'should have been briefed, voted on and able to set parameters on this action.' 'Donald Trump is not a dictator. And Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. That's why in a democracy, Congress exists,' Swalwell wrote on social media. 'Trump's actions — without pursuing proven congressionally authorized diplomatic efforts — threaten to mire the United States in ANOTHER endless Middle East Conflict.' The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations California condemned Trump's 'illegal and reckless' bombing, calling it an 'act of war that prioritizes (Israeli) Prime Minister Netanyahu's agenda over the interests of the American people.' 'This escalation, driven by pressure from an out-of-control Israeli government, risks dragging the U.S. into yet another unjust war in the region,' the organization said in a statement. CAIR said that while Trump previously promised to not start wars, he is now 'fueling dangerous escalation based on lies.' Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-San Jose, was more reserved in his criticism of the action, calling to 'refrain from further military action, and urge all parties back to the negotiating table before there is additional escalation.' Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, also criticized the lack of congressional authorization, but affirmed that 'Israel, the United States, and the world are safer without Iran having nuclear capabilities.' Rep. Lateefah Simon, D-Oakland called Trump's bombing of Iran 'lawless, dangerous, and immoral. This decision was made without the consent of Congress and without regard for the human lives that will be lost. This kind of power, wielded without accountability, puts all of us, our American troops and American families alike, in danger.' Rep. Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, voiced his support for Trump's 'decisive action to eliminate the nuclear capabilities posed by the Iranian regime was a necessary one to prevent a real and catastrophic threat.
