Pennsylvania Lawmaker Tries to Defend Vote Against Constitutional Carry

As my colleague Tom Knighton reported a couple of days ago, there’s a political storm brewing in Pennsylvania between a state representative and 2A organizations who say he’s responsible for killing a Constitutional Carry bill this session. 

Rep. Frank Burns, a Democrat who’s part of the unofficial House Second Amendment Caucus, was the deciding vote on a motion that would have allowed a Constitutional Carry bill to reach the House floor. While groups like Gun Owners of Pennsylvania and Firearm Owners Against Crime say that Burns turned his back on gun owners when he aligned himself with anti-gun Democrats for the vote, the lawmaker claims he was justified in his decision, and that it’s not evidence of any love of gun control.

Burns said his vote wasn’t on the merits of constitutional carry, which he’s voted to support in the past, but was warranted since it ran afoul of House rules and the Pennsylvania Constitution’s single-subject clause.

“What they’re saying is nonsense. That was a procedural vote on the ruling of the chair,” Burns said. “For 16 years, I supported gun owners’ constitutional rights. My position has not changed.”

What’s been said by the gun lobby is that Burns betrayed the spirit of the Second Amendment and should resign from the informal House Second Amendment Caucus — an unofficial group where lawmakers pledge to vote in support of gun rights.

The leaders of Pennsylvania Gun Rights, Firearms Owners Against Crime and Gun Owners of America-Pennsylvania all have called for the resignation in criticizing Burns’ vote. Constitutional carry is a top priority for gun rights activists.

“Frank Burns has voted against gun control, I will grant him that. However, this was the biggest most consequential pro-gun legislation,” said Craig Storrs Jr., executive director, Pennsylvania Gun Rights, first referring to prior votes cast by Burns. “I’m not just saying he failed — he completely and utterly failed. He won’t buck his own party unless they tell him that he can.”

The subject of the actual vote wasn’t whether or not to adopt a Constitutional Carry bill. Instead, it was about whether or not a Constitutional Carry amendment could be included in another propposed constitutional amendment proposal that would provide a window for victims of child sexual assault to sue their alleged abusers after the statute of limitations had been reached. 

The amendment offered by Rep. Aaron Bernstine was ruled out of order, and the vote was whether or not to uphold or reject the ruling. The vote ended up being cast on party lines, with 102 Democrats voting to uphold the rule and 101 Republicans voting to overturn it. 

A vote against the chair’s ruling would have broken the “very rules that protect the constitution,” Burns said, adding that in theory, had the amendment succeeded and the bill ultimately carried into law, it would likely be overturned in court due to procedural error.

“Some of these groups, they want a reason to hate me because I’m a Democrat. I represent 63,000 people back in Cambria County, that’s who I answer to. I do what’s right for those people,” Burns said. “I will never stand with special interest groups, I don’t care who it is.”

Storrs dismissed Burns’ explanation. He said the lawmaker could have found there was no violation or could have decided that since a “yes” vote would have allowed a floor debate on constitutional carry policy, that alone merited his support.

Bernstine agreed with that assessment. Bernstine also dismissed Burns’ prediction that procedural error would have likely torpedoed the effort in appeals court.

“This is clearly an excuse,” Bernstine said.

“Unfortunately, just as Frank Burns voted for the most liberal speaker in the history of the House of Representatives who has consistently advocated for (gun control), he went on to vote with the House speaker in order to stop constitutional carry from having the opportunity to be voted on,” Bernstine said, referring to House Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Delaware/Philadelphia.

I don’t think any Second Amendment groups hate Burns because he’s a Democrat. Frankly, I’d like to see more Democrats who vote against things like “red flag” laws, lost-or-stolen legislation, and bans on home-built firearms, as Burns has done in the past. But he was the decisive vote in keeping a Constitutional Carry measure off the ballot, and as such I get why 2A groups see that as a betrayal of his supposed support for the right to keep and bear arms. 

With Republicans in narrow control of the state Senate, Democrats holding a slight majority in the House, and anti-gun Josh Shapiro sitting in the governor’s office, the only way that a permitless carry measure can become law in Pennsylvania is if it’s approved by voters through a referendum or amendment to the state constitution. Burns may believe he was justified in keeping the Constitutional Carry language out of the proposed amendment because, in his opinion, it violated the single-subject rule, but that doesn’t change the fact that his vote scuttled the opportunity for voters to enshrine Constitutional Carry into the state constitution. 

The Second Amendment Caucus is an informal group of legislators, so other members can’t officially expel him, though I guess they could always tell him he’s no longer welcome at the table. Ultimately it will be up to the voters in the 72nd District to decide if Burns is worthy of remaining in office, or whether the “procedural” vote that killed off Constitutional Carry makes him unworthy of representing them in Harrisburg.