WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 469

An Act amending the act of August 5, 1977 (P.L.181, No.47), entitled "An act providing for the acceptance by the Governor of jurisdiction relinquished by the United States to the Commonwealth over lands within the Commonwealth's boundaries," further providing for general provisions and for procedure relating to concurrent jurisdiction over military installations.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Danilo Burgos and 12 co-sponsors

Pennsylvania updates military installation jurisdiction procedures to clarify concurrent state-federal authority sharing and governance arrangements on federal lands.

Referred to State Government
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 469

Legislative bill overview

HB 469 amends Pennsylvania's 1977 law governing the state's acceptance of jurisdiction over federal lands, specifically updating procedures for concurrent jurisdiction arrangements at military installations. The bill modifies how the Governor can accept federal jurisdiction transfers and establishes clearer protocols for managing shared state-federal authority over military properties within Pennsylvania's boundaries.

Why is this important

Military installations operate under complex jurisdictional frameworks where federal, state, and sometimes local authorities share enforcement and regulatory responsibilities. Updating these procedures can affect law enforcement coordination, environmental protection enforcement, taxation, and civilian access to military lands—issues that directly impact communities adjacent to bases and the military personnel stationed there.

Potential points of contention

  • Federal-state power balance: Changes to concurrent jurisdiction arrangements could shift enforcement authority between state and federal agencies, potentially creating conflicts over which government body controls specific regulations
  • Local community impacts: Modifications to jurisdiction procedures may affect local law enforcement's role at military installations and could influence how civilian crimes or environmental violations are handled
  • Fiscal implications: Jurisdictional changes often carry hidden costs for state enforcement and administrative resources that may not be explicitly detailed in the bill

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.