Notice how PA Lawmakers tried to use the "sex offender" card, to pass some totally unrelated provisions affecting all folks. Lawmakers everywhere are tricky they know how to get things into law even when that something may be detrimental to some group or a class of folks.11-28-2010 Pennsylvania:
House Bill 1926 - Veto Message
I am returning herewith, without my approval, House Bill 1926, P.N. 4477, entitled "An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general principles of justification, further providing for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of other persons, for grading of theft offenses and for licenses to carry firearms; providing for civil immunity for use of force; and further providing for registration of sexual offenders and for sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders."
My veto of this legislation came after careful consideration and weighing of the bill's multiple provisions. I would have gladly signed the amendments to "Megan's Law" that were the initial substance of House Bill 1926. The original aim of the bill was to close loopholes in the statute related to the registration of out-of-state sex offenders and to require the registration of transient sex offenders. We made clear to the Legislature early-on that we supported these well thought-out changes.
I wish that the Legislature had sent a clean bill with these provisions to my desk. However, the "Castle Doctrine" amendment that the General Assembly subsequently approved and included in House Bill 1926 would have threatened – not enhanced – the public safety of Pennsylvania citizens, and for that reason I am withholding my signature from the bill.
Under current law, the use of deadly force is not justifiable to protect oneself when one can safely retreat, unless a person is attacked in his or her dwelling or workplace. I support the state's existing Castle Doctrine – which enables Pennsylvanians to protect themselves in their homes; however, I have grave concerns with the expansion included in this legislation. We should have the right to protect the sanctity of our homes at all times. This legislation has nothing to do with the right to protect one's home, but seeks to expand the Castle Doctrine to outside the home.
The bill as passed encourages the use of deadly force, even when safe retreat is available, and advances a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. I do not believe that in a civilized society we should encourage violent and deadly confrontation when the victim can safely protect themselves. As keepers of the public trust, we have the solemn duty to protect our citizenry, not put them in harm's way, and to protect the sanctity of human life.
It is noteworthy that even the original sponsor of this bill, state Rep. Rick Taylor – who championed the Megan's Law improvements contained in the legislation – voted to oppose the bill after it was amended to include the Castle Doctrine. In addition, respected organizations including the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and CeaseFirePA have all asked me to veto House Bill 1926, and I agree with law enforcement that public safety is best preserved by refusing to expand the Castle Doctrine.
In approaching this decision, I spoke to Edward Marsico, the respected District Attorney of Dauphin County and the chair of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. He told me that "this bill is proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist" and that, if approved, it would create "great opportunities for defense lawyers of violent criminals." I agree.
Throughout my administration, I have asked you to pass common-sense bills that quell gun violence throughout our Commonwealth and save lives, and the Legislature has refused. In fact, in a show of real lack of courage, the Legislature resisted a chance to close the Florida concealed weapon permit loophole during its debate on this bill.
I cannot sign my name to a bill that contradicts the very anti-violence agenda I have worked so hard – along with many legislators – to achieve.
In addition to my concerns with the substantive provisions of this bill, there are issues with the procedure by which it was passed. Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution provides that "No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." This bill as introduced and subsequently amended four times dealt with amendments to our statute related to the registration of sex offenders. However, the Senate later expanded the bill to include amendments to our statute related to one's duty to retreat when faced with an aggressor and amend Pennsylvania's Castle Doctrine. It created an untenable burden on legislators who were against the expansion but were fearful of voting against the positive amendments to Megan's Law. That is just what the Supreme Court intended to prevent by its decision in Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth.
Pennsylvania Courts have held time and time again that the matters contained in a single bill must bear a "proper relation" to each other. It is not enough for the subjects to be linked by a broad and general topic. The issues in House Bill 1926, though they may have to do with "crime" generally, do not have anything to do with each other. The duty to retreat or the right to stand one's ground when confronted has nothing in common with sex offender registration requirements. House Bill 1926, therefore, is clearly unconstitutional and should not be enacted into law for that reason as well. ..Source.. Sincerely, Edward G. Rendell, Governor
No comments:
Post a Comment