Link to PDF file
No. 31618 _ Tommy A. Rohrbaugh v.
State of West Virginia
Starcher, J., concurring:
I concur in the majority
opinion's holding and reasoning.
I write separately to note that
the literal sweep of W,Va. Code, 61-7-7(b)  seems to be far broader
than common sense would suggest to be appropriate. I question whether the members
of the Legislature who voted for this statute intended that it would bar a man
who had relations with a girl when he was 19 and she was 15 _ and who had otherwise
led a law-abiding life _ from ever going squirrel hunting with a firearm
for the rest of his life.
Nevertheless, that is the plain
meaning of the statute, and in the posture of the current case, we must uphold
that meaning. (See
footnote 1) Accordingly, I concur.
I note that we are not presented
with either an equal protection or substantive due process challenge to the
application of the statute. As this Court noted in Haislop v. Edgel, 215
W.Va. 88, ___, 593 S.E.2d 839, 850  (upholding sex offender registration
Additionally, we are not unmindful
that the concurring opinion of Justices Souter and Ginsburg in Connecticut Department
of Public Safety noted that they agree with the observation that today's
holding does not foreclose a claim that Connecticut's dissemination of registry
information is actionable on a substantive due process principle[,] Id. 538
U.S. at 8, 123 S.Ct. at 1165, 155 L.Ed.2d at 106, and that the Court's
rejection of respondents' procedural due process claim does not immunize publication
schemes like Connecticut's from an equal protection challenge. Id. 538
U.S. at 10, 123 S.Ct. at 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d at 107.