Amending the PA constitution via Marsy’s Law on 2019 ballot

On the 2019 election ballot pa voters will be voting whether or not to amend the PA constitution with Marsy’s Law via yes no vote.
Marsy’s law amendment will address victim rights. Here is the description of it.

Quote:

---

The ballot measure would add a section addressing crime victims' rights to the Pennsylvania Constitution Declaration of Rights. The proposed language is modeled on Marsy's Law, a type of constitutional bill of rights for crime victims.
The ballot measure would provide crime victims with specific constitutional rights, including a right to:

• be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity, and privacy;
• proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt and final conclusion of the case;
• have the safety of the victim and victim's family considered when setting the bail amount and release conditions for the accused;
• reasonable and timely notice of public proceedings involving the criminal conduct;
• be present at public proceedings involving the criminal conduct;
• be heard at proceedings where a right of the victim is implicated, including release, sentencing, and parole proceedings;
• receive notice of any pretrial disposition of the case, with the exception of grand jury proceedings;
• provide information to be considered before the parole of the offender;
• reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on the behalf of the accused;
• reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused;
• refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused;
• full and timely restitution from the person or entity convicted;
• the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence;
• and confer with the government's attorney.

The ballot measure would define crime victim as a person against whom a criminal offense or delinquent act was committed and who was directly harmed by the offense or act

---

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania...endment_(2019)

Although the law sounds good for victims of crime, I don’t like the repeated use of the word”reasonable” . Will the second last bullet statement apply to firearms collected as evidence ( such as used in self defense or recovered as stolen)? Also the ninth statement ; what is reasonable protection? Are victims now going to be demanding secret service like protection ?

Also bear in mind that if they can amendment the PA state constitution with this; it is evident that the part of the PA constitution that reads ” The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned ” , can in fact be questioned.

The one that stuck out to me most as something that could relate to the 2A rights of someone is "the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence;" in relation to seized firearms when used in self defense or when someone is illegitimately red flagged.

Could be beneficial to get that one on the books.


The rest of the list seems fair, but I'm also not sure why it requires a Constitutional Amendment. I'm leaning towards not enforcing new laws by Amendment, so we don't get that trend going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpacaheat

The one that stuck out to me most as something that could relate to the 2A rights of someone is "the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence;" in relation to seized firearms when used in self defense or when someone is illegitimately red flagged.

Could be beneficial to get that one on the books.


The rest of the list seems fair, but I'm also not sure why it requires a Constitutional Amendment. I'm leaning towards not enforcing new laws by Amendment, so we don't get that trend going.

---

In my opinion the language is so vague I don't know how much effect this will have if it passes. I don't know why this required a constitution change? Couldn't this "Marsy Law" have been passed by the legislature as a regular law?

The list of supporters gives me serious pause as to the intent of this political move.
Bern-
---------------------------

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania...endment_(2019)

Supporters

Officials

Gov. Tom Wolf (D)[7]
State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm[8]
U.S. Rep. Scott Perry (R-10)[9]
Sen. John Sabatina (D-5)[10]
Sen. Katie Muth (D-44)[11]
Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-19)[12]
Sen. Lisa Baker (R-20)[13]
Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-18)[13]
Rep. Sheryl Delozier (R-88)[14]
Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell (D-190)[14]
Rep. Marty Flynn (D-113)[15]
Rep. Aaron Kaufer (R-120)[16]

Municipalities

Philadelphia City Council[17]

Organizations

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association[18]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berncly

The list of supporters gives me serious pause as to the intent of this political move.
Bern-
---------------------------

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania...endment_(2019)

Supporters

Officials

Gov. Tom Wolf (D)[7]
State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm[8]
U.S. Rep. Scott Perry (R-10)[9]
Sen. John Sabatina (D-5)[10]
Sen. Katie Muth (D-44)[11]
Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-19)[12]
Sen. Lisa Baker (R-20)[13]
Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-18)[13]
Rep. Sheryl Delozier (R-88)[14]
Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell (D-190)[14]
Rep. Marty Flynn (D-113)[15]
Rep. Aaron Kaufer (R-120)[16]

Municipalities

Philadelphia City Council[17]

Organizations

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association[18]

---

i saw that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

In my opinion the language is so vague I don't know how much effect this will have if it passes. I don't know why this required a constitution change? Couldn't this "Marsy Law" have been passed by the legislature as a regular law?

---

Just remember, the main supporters of this claim that the 2nd Amendment is vague and doesn't mean what it clearly means. Assholes like vague laws without clear definitions.

It has entirely too many supporters with the letter D behind their name for me to trust it.

Quote:

---

• refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused;

---

That right there is why they want it to be a constitutional amendment and not a bill. There are too many times where someone is lying about the accused and not allowing the defense to interview the accuser really hamstrings the defense.

What about this...


•be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity, and privacy;
• refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused;


So this would allow same to claim victim status when filing for a red flag, and you wouldnt be able to find out who your accusers is, nor face them in court.

This claim for "victim rights" just removes all accountability and due process.

Imagine going to court, on trial for the rest of your life. Your accusers are anonymous and represented by agent's of the government. There character, no matter their history or current addictions will be taken as gold standard and not be questioned, to question results in additional charges for violating victim laws..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berncly

The list of supporters gives me serious pause as to the intent of this political move.
Bern-
---------------------------

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania...endment_(2019)

Supporters

Officials

Gov. Tom Wolf (D)[7]
State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm[8]
U.S. Rep. Scott Perry (R-10)[9]
Sen. John Sabatina (D-5)[10]
Sen. Katie Muth (D-44)[11]
Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-19)[12]
Sen. Lisa Baker (R-20)[13]
Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-18)[13]
Rep. Sheryl Delozier (R-88)[14]
Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell (D-190)[14]
Rep. Marty Flynn (D-113)[15]
Rep. Aaron Kaufer (R-120)[16]

Municipalities

Philadelphia City Council[17]

Organizations

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association[18]

---

That settles it. I'm voting NO.

Lisa Baker again...hard to trust her lately.

Scott Perry being on that list confuses the hell out of me. He's my rep and solid usually, especially on the 2A.