Ban repeal sparks applause, frustration

On Dec. 18, Lake Forest repealed a year-old ordinance banning registered sex offenders from its public parks.

The city was one of more than a dozen in Orange County to add such a ban to their books since April 2011. Last month, in the face of a lawsuit challenging the ban’s constitutionality, Lake Forest became the first of those cities to reverse course. Proponents say the ban is needed to protect children from predators – critics argue the ban violates the civil rights of registered sex offenders.

Here is a range of opinions on the city’s latest move. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
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. 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 please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. 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.
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.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Fantastic!

Frustrated…GOOD! Let them be frustrated. I was frustrated too the last time I applied to rent an apartment and told that I was rejected because of my status as a sex offender even though that was 15 years ago!

So let them be frustrated…and let them also know that they can no longer tread on and ignore our constitutional rights as tax paying (when we can find someone to hire us) AMERICANS!

Thank you Janice for giving a voice to people who need one but have been abused, ignored, and silenced for so long!

So many things so wrong with Councilmember Adam Nick’s dramatic speech…. (omg – would it ever end???)

The permissive clause allows a sex offender with written permission from the sheriff to enter parks.

He suggested modifying the LF ordinance to include the waiver option. Aside from the fact that the Sheriff stated publicly that she did not foresee granting any waivers and only ONE waiver has been granted (to a personal friend of OC Supervisor Bates, no less), the ordinance that was challenged and found to preempt the California Constitution was the County one, the one that DOES include the waiver. What is the point jumping through hoops to end up with an ordinance already ruled unconstitutional?

The previous council was also told by the District Attorney’s Office that the city will be sued.

They most certainly were not. In Laguna Hills in September 2011, right across the freeway, the OCDA sold this ordinance as ironclad and constitutionally sound, researched by the top attorney the OCDA has on staff – an individual “who has argued in front of the Supreme Court”. At the same Laguna Hills City Council meeting (video is online) the OCDA Chief of Staff acknowledged that the total ban was taken out of the state law / Chelsea’s Law. When asked for the reason for that the response was “Not sure – partisan politics” or something to that effect. This, after a summer of party bickering that almost shut down the government, was accepted as a plausible explanation.

Now, does it even make sense to repeal the ordinance without putting up a fight and because the sex offenders have made good on their threat? … If you’re going to rescind this ordinance just because someone sued, then the previous council should not have voted this ordinance in in the first place.

That is neither here nor there. But it does make sense to repeal an ordinance that was ruled unconstitutional by a judge even in a milder form.

The ACLU is suing because they feel that California sex offenders shouldn’t have to turn over their Facebook, their Twitter and email account to police. The attorney general is using taxpayers’ money to fight this. Should California rescind this law because ACLU sued?

No, California had to suspend this law because a JUDGE ruled its constitutionality questionable and said so. Whether it will be rescinded remains to be seen, but the chances are pretty good after Friday.

Mr. Nick – please save us the rhetoric and spend some time reading the Constitutions you are sworn to uphold. Instead of spending the money of the residents of Lake Forest on lawsuits that are going to be lost.

@cons … We were there … We thought he would never end …. But in the end …all was good, not sure until the very end … But finally the right decision!

Of course Erin Runnion is not going to voice her opposition to the repeal… same night this ordinance was repealed they made a motion to retain her and her organization for consulting services.

It’s very interesting how Erin Runion is on a witch hunt against registrants, yet her daughter’s murderer was not on any list. Also, her daughter was not abducted from a park. Had Erin Runion been watching her daughter, then she may still be here. I think she knows this, yet I feel that she refuses to accept it. So, what does she do? She advocates for the government to watch our kids.
BOTTOM LINE: if parents would be PARENTS and accompany their children to the park or supervise them when they play outside, then these Nanny State laws would be moot. It’s not the government’s job to raise our kids. It’s OUR job!!!