Pa. House debate fails to pass ban on machine‑gun conversion devices; motion to reconsider filed

HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Oct. 1, 2025 defeated House Bill 18 66, a proposal to add machine‑gun conversion devices to the state’s list of prohibited offensive weapons, by a recorded vote of 101 yeas to 102 nays. After the tally, the House received and entered into the record a signed motion to reconsider the defeated vote.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Steele (Allegheny County), urged support on grounds of public safety and law enforcement protection. “Chief McIntyre’s surviving family wants these senseless devices off the street, and so does every police chief that I represent,” Steele said on the floor. Steele described the devices as “small pieces of metal, sometimes plastic, often 3‑D printed, about the size of a Lego” that “allow a shooter to fire a staggering array of bullets with a single pull of the trigger.” She added, “I am a gun owner. I carry a gun. I will use my gun if I need to. I respect the Second Amendment. This bill does not violate the Second Amendment.”

Opponents raised constitutional and drafting concerns. Representative Cutler (Lancaster County) warned that the bill contains inconsistent definitions and said the cosponsor memo did not match statutory language. “When you look at that definition, it is actually inconsistent with the language that was contained in the cosponsorship memo,” Cutler said, adding that ambiguity could invite litigation and that inconsistency was “the reason I am a no vote.” Representative Krupa (Fayette County) argued the measure used “a vague, sloppy definition to criminalize accessories that don't even turn a firearm into a machine gun,” saying a passage would make “tens of thousands of law‑abiding Pennsylvanians … felons overnight.”

Speakers on both sides cited federal and state court decisions during debate. Representative Briggs (Montgomery County) and others cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent as limiting but not precluding state firearm regulation; Representative Briggs quoted District of Columbia v. Heller and other authorities to argue the right to bear arms is not absolute. Representative Kenyatta (Philadelphia) framed his support as consistent with protecting life and public safety while noting respect for constitutional processes.

The roll call and immediate aftermath: the clerk recorded the yeas as 101 and the nays as 102; the chair announced that fewer than a majority required by the constitution had voted in the affirmative and that the bill therefore failed. The chair then read into the record a communication dated Oct. 1, 2025, notifying the House that a member from Montgomery County had moved that the defeated vote on House Bill 18 66 be reconsidered; that motion was entered on the record and remains pending according to the floor transcript.

No further action on the bill was recorded in floor debate that day. The transcript shows multiple members asked for clarifications about statutory definitions, the bill’s relation to federal ATF classifications and prior cosponsor materials, and whether particular accessories—bump stocks, Glock switches, or other modifiers—would be covered by the text as written. Several members urged clearer statutory language or additional committee review before another floor vote.

The debate was contentious and lengthy: members on both sides were reminded by the chair to maintain decorum during the floor exchange, and the speaker cautioned against personal insults. The transcript records interventions by members raising points of order and warnings from the chair about conduct on the floor.

Next steps: the recorded motion to reconsider was placed in the House record immediately after the vote. The motion was signed and entered by a member identified in the transcript as “the gentleman from Montgomery County.” The transcript does not record whether the motion to reconsider was debated or voted on before the House adjourned.

Votes, the pending motion to reconsider and the drafting questions identified on the floor suggest either additional committee work, an amended bill, or a reconsideration vote will be the paths to any future action on this measure.