ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


Lawsuit Challenges Sex Offender “No Candy” Halloween Signs (NBC)

An Orange County city will consider a provision in an ordinance that requires sex offenders to post signs outside their homes that indicate they do not have candy for Halloween trick-or-treaters.

The Orange City Council will meet Tuesday night to discuss the ordinance, which also bans sex offenders from displaying Halloween decorations, opening their doors to children and leaving lights on Halloween night.

Part of the ordinance requiring sex offenders to post signs on their front doors that read, “No candy or treats at this residence,” is the subject of a lawsuit filed Wednesday by California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL). The lawsuit names the city of Orange, claiming the signs make sex offenders — and anyone else at the residence — marked targets. Full Article (with video)

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wouldn’t you think that they would learn anything and I mean anything they are brain dead!!! Simi Valley tried this??? Hmmmm what is the definition of insanity do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome… I’m moving to Oklahoma to the conservative Bible belt country… hey they offer life at half the cost of living and forgiveness after you have paid your debt to society. Big amen to that!!!

I believe they are trying a variation on what Simi Valley tried. Orange is requiring a sign that only says no candy, but as I recall, Simi Valley required a sign that said “Sex Offender.”

The sign requirement in Simi Valley was the same requirement as the City of Orange has imposed. Neither city required the words “sex offender”. Having said that, the effect was the same — only “sex offenders” had to post the sign on their doors and therefore they were identifying themselves as such with the posted sign regardless of the wording on that sign.

Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks to NBCLA for a balanced story on this volatile issue. It’s unfortunate that the City did not respond sooner to CA RSOL’s demand that they repeal the Halloween sign requirement. Early action could have precluded the filing of a lawsuit. We are hoping the City Council will do the right thing at its next meeting on Sep. 24 and repeal the sign requirement. As U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson ruled in last year’s challenge of a similar ordinance in Simi Valley, “The public interest is not served — indeed, it is undermined — by enforcement of an unconstitutional law… Read more »

My favorite part of what you quoted was the first sentence…”The public interest is not served — indeed, it is undermined — by enforcement of an unconstitutional law singling out a discrete, outcast group to speak in such a way that their persons, property, and loved ones may be endangered.” If courts can recognize this is singling out the group “in such a way that their persons, property, and loved ones may be endangered,” then logic would dictate the registry itself would qualify. I have chosen to live on the street rather than put my wife and daughter in such… Read more »

It is so very sad that you are faced with that decision — to live with your family who are at risk of danger because you live in the same residence — or to live on the street. You should not have to face that decision now or ever! There is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, United States v. Wolf Child, that may allow you to live with them if you so choose. Please contact me to discuss your specific circumstances.

Pity of orange …keep wasting and deceiving taxpayers … keep wasting money on your wrong decisions…there are
costs involved for your bad decisions….stand back stand
back orange pity you’re in check of violating civil rights.

If I was forced to place a sign that read “No candy or treats at this residence” I would place under that sign an additional sign that would read.

“Halloween is a pagan holiday celebrating Satan and I do not participate in it.”

I would be well within my first amendment rights to add that additional sign.

That is a clever idea! Posting a second sign.

You are right on with that…GREAT IDEA!!!

LA Times story online tonight (for tomorrow’s paper) says the Orange City Attorney indicates that at the meeting on Tuesday, the city will probably drop the sign requirement from the ordinance, as after reading the Simi Valley ruling, he sees no way to defend it:,0,259967.story

Today like never before we are faced with untruths and half truths about the pc290 registrant. Those of us that have learned to question and look for the truth,have a duty to educate those that have been misled for political gain. Please speak out and become proactive in this most important fight.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x