Clearly, a vast array of merchants and materials is implicated by the reach of this statute as written. A romance novel sold at a drugstore, a magazine offering sex advice in a grocery store checkout line, an R-rated DVD sold by a video rental shop, a collection of old Playboy magazines sold by a widow at a garage sale –– all incidents of unquestionably lawful, nonobscene, nonpornographic materials being sold to adults –– would appear to necessitate registration under the statute. Such a broad reach is, without question, constitutionally disproportionate to the stated aim of the statute to provide a community ““heads-up”” upon the opening of ““adult bookstore-type businesses.””
Conclusion. For the reasons detailed in this entry, Plaintiffs’’ facial challenge to HEA 1042 is well-founded. We hold that HEA 1042 unduly burdens First Amendment rights, and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.