PA: Testimony on House Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law Residence Restrictions

Source: 9/12/23

Session: 2023-2024

Hearing: House Judiciary Committee | Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law residence restrictions

September 12, 2023 | 1:00 p.m.

Veronica Miller, Senior Policy Counsel for Criminal Legal Reform, testified on behalf of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

To watch the hearing or read testimonies of all participants, click here.

Bill summary: House Bill 77 would prohibit an individual classified as a sexually violent predator (SVP) from residing within 2,500 feet of a public school, private school, parochial school or daycare center for the duration of their required registration period. For anyone classified as an SVP, this would be a lifetime prohibition. Additionally, the legislation would require any SVP currently living within the prohibited zone to move from the residence within six months of enactment.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I know this PA / PARSOL case has been posted and discussed before, but I had never seen the detailed ACLU-PA testimony position paper. Although this has a lot of what we already know, I liked the official references and think it is well articulated and presented.

We need to get violent if …

[MODERATORS REMINDER TO EVERYONE: Everyone should re-read the guidelines shown about the comments form! People who use invalid email addresses or submit comment that do not follow guidelines (inciting violence, insulting other commenters, etc.) will be blocked]

I understand the concern regarding the housing of SVP’s. These people can sometimes be very scary, very dangerous people. But residency restrictions in any form are completely ineffective. Try to keep allegedly dangerous people from places where children congregate? Hah! These people have to eat and so they go to a grocery store or, heaven forbid, the super Walmart, in their area. Those places are loaded with kids. What about attending church? The state cannot prevent these people from freely exercising their religious beliefs. When I go to mass on Sunday I try to avoid the kids, not because of any risk to me but because kids are often noisy and annoying. Go into the minimart? Kids. Go to the movies? Kids. It’s an impossible goal and the law should not pretend it isn’t.

Registrants who are looking for an online church specifically created by and for registrants should consider

This is just another reminder that the terrorists who are dangerous to Americans live right here in our country. We should never tolerate any terrorist who thinks “residency restrictions” should exist. Those terrorists are enemies commiting acts of war. Make them pay.