Fullerton Parks Ordinance preempts State Law

On April 11 a panel of 3 Superior Court Judges found the Fullerton municipal ordinance prohibiting 290 registrants from entering and being near public parks to be preempting state law and thus unlawful. This decision is not published, so it only effects the Fullerton ordinance in this very case. It is is similar to the ruling regarding the County of Orange ordinance from last November. 

The Court of Appeal’s published opinion regarding the County Ordinance is expected late spring / early summer.

Fullerton Parks Ordinance – Appellate Court Decision (April 2013)

COURT DETERMINES ORANGE COUNTY SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE UNLAWFUL (Nov 2012)

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think this article should really set the tone. Lets all be real. There is currently a proposed Sex Offender Tier System introduced, multiple cities have overturned their park laws and this is certainly due to the hard work and dedication of a group of hard working individuals. Hats off to you Janice

State law currently allows municipalities to establish residence restrictions to protect the safety of its residents. I can’t remember what the number of the statute is, but until that is removed completely, we can expect these scenarios to repeat themselves over and over and make lives of registrants miserable or unbearable. That is just one example of what a piece of “work” this entire body of law represents. I’ll do some digging in the meantime, but if anyone knows the exact statute, that would be helpful.

It seems that whenever anything positive and constructive comes our way, some clause in the law is built in to negate any progress made. The simple but elusive starting point is to only have these clauses apply non-retroactively – each and every one.

Then registrants would be at least afforded the protection of the constitution. What a concept.

what aboout this ?
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/OC-Supervisors-Approve-Banning-Sex-Offenders-From-Parks-Beaches-119290584.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150164129533147_26195203_10151564098673147#f1fc02a8b04b85e

An ordinance that bans registered sex offenders from some Orange County parks and beaches and imposes a $500 fine on violators was approved by county Supervisors Friday.

States differ considerably in how and to what extent they preempt the regulation of firearms and ammunition.  Specific questions about whether a particular type of local regulation may be preempted in any given state involve complex inquiry and analysis of existing case law.  The Law Center is available to consult with officials and advocates on specific questions relating to their jurisdiction.