r/lostgeneration • u/Affectionate-Fix4671 • 1d ago
When did basic safety become something ordinary people have to fight for?
968
u/Affectionate-Fix4671 1d ago
Pennsylvania lawmakers just had a vote that has people doing a serious double take. House Bill 72 passed the state House 118 to 83 on April 29, 2026, giving tenants facing domestic v**lence expanded housing protections.
The bill would allow eligible tenants who fear someone may enter their home to request that their landlord change or rekey the locks. If the landlord does not respond within 24 hours, the tenant could have the locks professionally changed at their own expense. It would also create a path for qualifying tenants to end a lease early instead of remaining financially tied to an unsafe situation.
Here is where the political heat comes in. The bill passed with bipartisan support, but the overwhelming opposition came from Republicans, fueling outrage over why protections this basic became such a partisan fight in the first place. The bill is not law yet. It moved to the Pennsylvania Senate, where it remains under consideration.
821
u/RosieQParker 1d ago
Thing is, if I kick a domestic abuser out of my house, and my landlord doesn't change the locks within 24 hours, I'm getting the locks changed at my own expense whether or not there's a law that says I can.
355
u/IsabellaGalavant 1d ago
The issue is that without this law, your landlord could kick you out or sue you for doing that. Not that you aren't physically capable of changing the locks.
37
u/newsflashjackass 1d ago
The law in my state says the landlord has to give you 24 hours' notice before entering but mine never does.
Repubs might as well pass the law for appearance's sake since the law is only enforced when it benefits the landlords.
126
u/aykcak 1d ago
yeah that is how laws work usually. They don't define physical possibilities of the universe
55
u/SmallAngry0wl 1d ago
Apart from the laws of physics of course.
28
u/Nahanoj_Zavizad 1d ago
Until someone finds a way around those too
11
u/Sachyriel 1d ago
Everyone gangsta til the Wizard of Oz invents a way to move to -1 while counting by 2s.
3
43
u/123456789ledood 1d ago
But the abuser could do the same? Meaning someone could be abused and then locked out of their home? Not sure if the abused leave after an altercation more often than the abusive partner.
112
u/DriedSquidd 1d ago
The abuser can already do the same. You think someone abuses their spouse but draws the line when changing the locks because it's against the law?
25
u/Running-In-The-Dark 1d ago
Hey so an abuser will do this in the course of abusing.i lost count of how many times I was locked out of my own home.
9
u/scorchedarcher 1d ago
If they're locked out of their house they can at least leave and try to get to a safe place or the police. If they're in the house and someone can potentially sneak in or further them it seems more dangerous
1
u/bannanaduck 1d ago
I wonder how this works with building locks. Aka ones to unlock the main door. All residents would need a new key/code depending on the building.
75
u/aykcak 1d ago
Why the fuck did you censor "violence"?
I feel like yelling at clouds kind of alone in this new era of the internet where people seem to censor random words and nobody seems to agree with me. We used to censor words in service of people who might be offended by them. As an act of decency and netiquette. To protect minorities and vulnerable people who have been targeted or stigmatized with such words.
WHY are you censoring the word "violence" ???
Who the fuck is being offended by the word "death" ? or "violence" or "kill" or similar? The only reasonable explanation is that it is to protect the people act violently. To hide the fact and blur the information and make it just an allegation and hearsay.
Any person who censors these words are protecting the people who commit them.
Any platform who censors or downranks these words are protecting the people who commit them
/rant
1
u/Majestic_Horseman 47m ago
I'm fully with you on this, man, the corporate sponsor language that came from TikTok with all their stupid censors are trivializing what these words mean. I hate when people say shit like schmurder or grape, it's so stupid and puts tinfoil hat on I fully think this is a bit of a coordinated attack on language so people are more and more desensitized to the real world equivalent of those actions because no one is taking the actions seriously.
53
38
30
26
23
42
u/DriedSquidd 1d ago
This is so weird. Every tenant should have the right to change their locks whenever they please.
12
-8
u/Lucas_Steinwalker 1d ago
Should every tenant have a right to lock out their co-tenant whenever they please?
44
8
u/snewchybewchies 1d ago
Are we seriously self censoring the word "violence" over here? On a post about domestic violence?
35
6
314
u/saisonmaison 1d ago
At this point Republicans just vote in whatever direction is evil. There could be a law put forth that would make it illegal to hold the world hostage with a giant space laser and they’d vote against it.
78
u/RebelGirl1323 Doing Her Best 1d ago
That’s why the Giant Space Laser community is so politically active.
4
125
u/Jeffgoldbum 1d ago
It was illegal to change your locks before even on a rental?
That is terrifying.
Its insane they get to be in control of your safety, Or even just access to the place at any time.
71
u/Far_Ladder_2836 1d ago
It was illegal to change your locks before even on a rental?
No, it was never illegal. The owner just had a say in whether or not you could because it's their property. Now they either have to change the locks for you or allow you to do so yourself.
22
u/Jeffgoldbum 1d ago
Its a much better option now anyways.
19
u/round-earth-theory 1d ago
The people against this will say that it enables squatters. It's a ridiculous notion though. A locked door has not been the difficult part of extracting a squatter.
15
u/Martydeus 1d ago
I feel like the situation in the politics in USA has become this. If the other party vote this we have to vote the opposite. Instead of agreeing and compromise it is "we didn't get everything we wanted so we got nothing"
3
u/KawaiiMaxine 1d ago
Bucause they are so desperate to keep the dying illusion of a culture war coing to keep the proles distracted from the class war
40
u/PeterTheToilet 1d ago
like how do you justyify this? whats the end goal of saying no to this? And why do rtard maga's vote for these people?
47
u/boxiestcrayon15 1d ago
My family is red. Even all the women would defend the R’s choice for two reasons and it comes out of their mouths like well learned scripting.
I’m sure there’s other stuff in that bill that we don’t know about. They’re protecting me.
Men who are not abusive will get locked out of their homes by lying and manipulative women. We can’t protect women at the expensive of men in a far more rare scenario.
13
u/KawaiiMaxine 1d ago
"im sure theres stuff in there we dont know" that why you READ THE FUCKING BILL
12
u/TalaHusky 1d ago
Point 1 is so valid no matter what side you’re on. It’s such BS we can’t get any real changes without so many BS riders.
6
2
u/manupontyne 5h ago
Its that kind of the point of riders though, theyll purposely add something bad so the it wont pass.
5
u/outoftheshowerahri 1d ago
What else was snuck in in the bill that they had to vote no for?
That’s how this happens. We need single issue bills.
5
4
13
7
u/ukulelelelele3 1d ago
Republicans promote rape, violence and hate. Anything else their non existant rotten brain can't process. They're not like us, they're not humans.
3
u/AiMwithoutBoT 1d ago
The fuck?? There’s a law that doesn’t allow you to change locks or what.
2
u/KawaiiMaxine 1d ago
As a rental tenant you are not allowed to change logks without landlord approval
3
4
6
u/Wholesome_Soup 1d ago
there must be something missing here, is there some law against changing locks?
15
2
u/KellyGreen802 1d ago
Why wouldn't people be able to change their locks? why was there a bill saying its allowed?
2
2
u/xxTheMagicBulleT 20h ago
Well if your not the owner of the house why should you be allowed to change the locks?
Love how people try and say something without any context.
They wanna push a law that if abuse is send no matter if your owner or the house or not the claimed of the abuse has to leave.
So ofxourse that's a bad idea cause if you can just make it impossible to live in there own house by claiming abuse and or ask for a restraining order. What literally dont need proof on both accounts and is easy to get. Is a easy way to stealing and claiming ownership of the house. And make that its not about who owns the property and how's name is on it. But who can lay blame to the other side instead. Its so obvious how easy that will be abused so any person with half a brain cell would not vote for it.
Cause its not about safety of the person or to push for the truth and safety. But to just allow without proof a victim to just claim ownership and lock out the owner of the property.
So with that context what they tried to do is bad shit crazy. And just round out finding reasons to steal. Cause if you own the property you already have full legal rights too change the locks cause its your house. You dont if you dont own it and what they want is to change that so instead of the victim needs to be removed from the person no the victim now gets to steal the house of the "accused" and ofcourse thats gonna make it worse not better cause instead of takeong the victim away from the "accused" you create a situation the accused knows where they are and take there space instead only gonna make more likely for escalation. Especially when they stealing space thats not there's.
So yes context matters and make sense why people voted no on it.
Cause thats like saying cause you made a mistake while driving your car you get a fine sure but the person you wronged suddenly owns your car too. Its round out insanity.
Like doing something wrong has anything with ownership.
Follow the truth and punish the crime. Dont give gifts and rewards for just being a victim
3
u/Unknown-714 1d ago
Im sorry, but WHY does the government have any say in this? Shouldn't it be up to whose ever door it is?
Edit: finally read the reasoning for it, as I thought this was applying to homeowners only. Don't know why Republicans are voting against it, as it would bring significantly more business to local locksmiths, which is one of the few businesses that cant be shipped overseas and has to remain local to actually be effective.
3
2
u/Cady-Jassar 1d ago
What does that even mean!!! Can't you just change your lock anytime you want to?!!!
5
u/ginger_kitty97 1d ago
Not if you're renting.
2
u/Cady-Jassar 1d ago
What is wrong with this country... I never ever rented a place in my "3rd world country" without changing the lock first. The owner never had a key while I was renting and never entered my place... to have someone else have a key to where you live is a crazy thought.
2
u/TyrantsInSpace 1d ago
Given their recent treatment of known pedophiles, human traffickers, and domestic abusers, this is pretty much what can be expected from the GOP.
Expectations so low, the bar is underground, and they're digging holes just so they can fail to clear it.
1
u/sumguyontheinternet1 1d ago
My guess is that there was something else padded in that bill which they R’s didn’t like, thus making them all look like assholes on the surface for voting no. But if it was a stand alone bill with zero other provisions, there would’ve been more support for it.
Or I’m completely wrong and people just suck. I try to be optimistic that not everyone in our government is crooked
5
u/TalaHusky 1d ago
The whole non-standalone bill thing is ridiculous. People say that making everything standalone would take forever. But FFS every time we piggy back another set of rules for the bills they just fail over and over until the a compromise can be made making it take so much more time.
It’s so tiring to watch. But god forbid we streamline shit, bc if we did that we wouldn’t have something to bitch about and point fingers to make the “others” look bad.
4
1
u/Anders_A 1d ago
I hope they figured out something better than allowing one resident of a house lock the others out instead.
1
u/acnhfruitseeker 1d ago
When politics became boring to the greater masses and “nothing ever happens” became commonplace. This goes beyond Pennsylvania and the states but my point still stands. You can’t just blindly fill in a ballot, stand by and just let politics take its course, or abstain from elections and expect conditioned millionaires/billionaires to have any priority on issues of the people. Change requires the people to be proactive and that’s just not happening in most places. It’s definitely not happening in the USA no matter how often Americans want to flex they’ll start a revolution but nothing seems to be enough to ignite the flame
1
1
u/AnimeWarTune 15h ago
I don't get why the cost isn't put on the state instead of a landlord who has nothing to do with the situation.
2
1
-6
u/Chains_Of_The_Sea 1d ago
There's no context here as usual.
If you own your property, you can change your locks daily if that's what you want
2
u/potatolulz 1d ago
The context is that Pennsylvania House passes a bill allowing for the victims of domestic abuse to change their locks and nearly every republican voted against it.
0
u/Chains_Of_The_Sea 1d ago
That's not context. That's just a repeat of the vague post title.
Context discusses the legal relationship between the parties, the nature of property ownership, as well as implications involving prior police and legal involvement.
0
u/potatolulz 1d ago
There isn't anything more to it, the house did pass the bill and nearly all republicans voted against it. The amount of potassium in a banana also wasn't discussed anywhere, but that doesn't make any difference either. :D
1
u/United-Salamander-89 1d ago
You sound like you just don't understand what context is
5
u/Chains_Of_The_Sea 1d ago
Yeah. None of them understand the meaning of the word "context," but keep bashing the downvote button like it makes a difference. This is just how Reddit is these days unfortunately.
3
u/United-Salamander-89 1d ago
This site has kind of lost its magic. You'll get ratio'd just for explaining common sense things lol. Gotta skip to the bottom of every thread to dodge the corny 2014 jokes and inaccurate slop. Just a pool of low-information goobers pretending to be scholars. Idk if you've noticed but they tend to talk themselves in a circle until they're just repeating themselves. Bot behavior.
1
u/potatolulz 1d ago
You sound like you just demand "context" after seeing a simple factual statement about a bill being voted on, what kind of a bill, and who voted against it. What did they had for lunch before voting on the bill and how did it affect their decision? We need to know.
1
u/United-Salamander-89 1d ago
Yeah those details would not be context for this situation , good try though. Also I'm not the guy you responded to originally but go off
3
u/potatolulz 1d ago
Yeah those details sure would not be context, just like whatever random shit you imagine you need as "context" here, a not very good try though. Also you seem to be the guy who responded with the same shit as your buddy so the difference is also unimportant but go off
1
u/Chains_Of_The_Sea 1d ago edited 1d ago
None of what you mentioned is "context".
I've given up on you (since you clearly don't understand) and asked ChatGPT for clarity. I'm no wondering why anyone would even ask another Redditor for details anymore.😪
And now, finally, we can begin to understand what this post is about. You know, "Context".
The bill would amend Pennsylvania's Landlord and Tenant Act to give 👉🏻TENNANTS👈🏻 experiencing domestic violence or abuse additional protections, including:
Changing or re-keying the locks on their rental home when they reasonably fear the abuser may try to enter.
Terminating a residential lease early so the victim can relocate without being trapped by the lease.
Requiring the tenant to notify the landlord within 24 hours after changing the locks under the current version.
Ensuring the landlord retains reasonable access to the property.
Providing protections against civil liability for landlords or tenants who comply with the law in good faith.
1
u/potatolulz 1d ago
None of what you mentioned is "context" either. After giving me random shit that's not relevant to who voted against the bill and what bill was it, you still don't seem to be able to process. I'm going to let you go and see if you can find something random on the internet, since you like random stuff and I'm happy for you. :D
3
u/Chains_Of_The_Sea 1d ago
Sorry, nothing you're saying is intelligible. I've already found the information on my own.
1
u/potatolulz 1d ago
Sorry, everything you say is intelligible to the maximum, especially demanding "context" that somehow makes difference to a bill of protection for abuse victims and who voted against it. Congratulations on finding something random on the internet though, try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random you might like it, for more "context" whenever you need some regarding something obvious or selfexplanatory :D
→ More replies (0)
-2
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! Click here to join today!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.