Mission Viejo agrees not to enforce Presence Restrictions for 290s

The City of Mission Viejo has agreed not to enforce the presence restrictions in an ordinance it adopted in January 2012.  The agreement is now in effect and will continue to remain in effect unless the State Supreme Court makes an adverse ruling in a related case.
According to a letter from Mayor Trish Kelley dated February 21, 2014 (below), the Chief of Police Services and the City Attorney recommended to the City Council a stay of enforcement for the city’s ordinance.  The presence restrictions in that ordinance that will not be enforced include all city parks and recreational areas.
“This is a great victory for more than 105,000 registered citizens in the state of California,” stated California RSOL president Janice Bellucci.  “No longer will those citizens be denied the use of parks and recreational areas within the City of Mission Viejo.”
Mission Viejo is one of a growing number of cities within Orange County to either agree not to enforce its presence restrictions or to repeal its presence restrictions.  Some cities, such as Lake Forest, repealed its ordinance after a lawsuit was filed in federal district court.  Other cities either repealed their ordinances or issued a stay of enforcement after receipt of a letter from California RSOL dated January 20, 2014.  In that letter, California RSOL notified the cities of two recent decisions by the Court of Appeal that determined such restrictions to be preempted by state law.   Also in that letter, California RSOL requested that cities repeal their ordinances within 60 days and warned that if the ordinances were not repealed, the cities could be challenged in court.
Review by the California Supreme Court of the California Court of Appeals decisions to which the CA RSOL referred in its letter has been requested by the Orange County District Attorney.  The Supreme Court is not expected to grant review of those decisions.

Related posts

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. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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 in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

Any word about San Diego area????

Thank you Janice.

This is nice; Does this mean that presence restriction laws in San Bernardino County are suspended as well? I wonder if it would be a good idea for someone to keep tabs on all crimes committed in parks in California while waiting for the outcome of the review. That information can show just how unnecessary these kinds of laws are and how they have no impact on crime reduction.

Thank you to Janice and the CA RSOL crew.

Where do we stand with Jessica’s Law and residency restrictions in Riverside County (specifically Corona).

Thank you Janice. Another victory. None of these laws make any sense, and if some realize this, I am sure other will follow suit.

This may be a long shot, but it’s something to think about.
Maybe Janice could weigh in on this?
QUESTION: Could cities that do this instead of repeal the law be “pulling a fast one”? Meaning, could they “gather evidence” of registered citizens being present at these locations via CCTV video of parks, license plate scanning, etc. and just put this evidence on the shelf. Then, if these ordinances are upheld by the Supreme Court, could they then go out and arrest everyone against whom they have said evidence?
In other words, they say they will not enforce it NOW. What’s to stop them from enforcing it if the Supreme Court rules in their favor? Where as, if they fully repeal the law, then there was no law broken to go back and arrest people over.
Technically, a law is being “violated” even though they aren’t enforcing it NOW. But, could they enforce a law next year that was broken this year?
Food for thought.

Is there way or a possibility to file a similar lawsuit against the state regarding residency restrictions? (LA County for me)