Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

#30776

terry brunson

HB 1952 will challenged on Ex Post Facto standards of the date as new law and not whether it is punitive.

HB 1952 has taken the punitive bite out of the challenge -thinking that will pass constitutional muster because the punitive elements have been removed.

The PASC is not easy fooled to see that Muniz ans Reed and Gilbert – fought EX Post Facto claims, but it was the PASC on its own that saw the light on the real issue as being the application of the SORNA law in a retroactive way – It was based on the date not so much the punitive punishments.

HB 1952 removes the punitive aspects on restrictions – thinking that will satisfy the constitutional muster of being fair to pre SORNA people. The issue is the Date. New Law is being written. It is not a revert backwards by a savings clause. HB 1952 is a new law with a date in 2018 affecting old law people with a past date.

It would be okay to apply HB 1952 to people as of the date it becomes law onward. . . But to add people who’s offense is backward is EX Post Facto. Why cannot they see this.

They are hoping that taking the punitive bite out the Bill will let the Ex Post Facto issue be over looked as it was in the past. It is a gamble and it can make the PASC think that the Pa. Assembly don’t have good lawyer to allow such – They want the PASC to look the other way and go back to how yall use to over look Megan’s Laws that are not punitive yet Expost Facto. . . THIS IS THE ISSUE YALL GOT IT? tAKE AWAY THE PUNTIVE BITE- and apply the new law Ex Post Facto. . . . . . .

The PASC use to accept this. . . Lets go back to it. . The old play book game. Smile