Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

#33420
Avatar
terry brunson

Hb 1952 will meet its doom – at a show down to show all the flaws with it. It is just a re-write of ML 2 striped of punitive restrictions that got ML -2 gun down.

When HB 1952 becomes law – It is going to have to be able to muster fairness challenge on of isolating a group to attack simply for being Pre-SORNA and winning a hands down fight under MUNIZ.

HB 1952 gives opportunity for PSP to give evidence on why someone would qualify to be put under HB 1952 rules.
It leans on a presumption that all sex offenders are a danger to the Pa. public. The can be rebutted by applied challenge on evidence hearing.
The case law of Matthew V. Elrigde 424 U.S. 319 on due process tells us that a person has a due process right to be heard before a law is pinned on them. HB 1952 lacks this due process of a hearing on factual evidence to put a person under HB 1952 just by being a Pre-SORNA RSO. That seems to be all the evidence needed to show that one is a danger to the Pa. public.

That violates the doctrine of fairness. HB 1952 do give the opportunity for judicial determination, but that is to file to get from under HB 1952… Not to see if you belong under it by show of factual evidence. Do any one understand me?

How – HB 1952 will be applied is the main thing of the main thing. It will be applied by the PSP in an unfair way to presume all RSO’s are a danger to the Pa. public with no right for the RSO to rebut by challenge. The Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 gives all in Pa. a right to due process of a hearing before the HB 1952 is put on them to follow. Take away this right and people in position of power can do what they want to RSO’s all day long and just cry public safety without showing how the public is in danger by the RSO’s actions now today.

Don’t bring only that RSO is on a watch list and must remain there – until until- until and until – based on what evidence, and can we have a opportunity to rebut by challenge of the evidence by a hearing. This is not written in the Bill. . . . . 1952 and no one will bring it up at this stage because it will show how unfair the Bill really is just in due process of fairness for a hearing before it is put on the RSO. May be I am the only one that sees this. . . I should have become a defense appeal lawyer. I see it – and I am taking it to the PASC on this issue. . . there are more but time and space won’t let me say it all.