SHAFTER, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) –The city of Shafter may repeal an ordinance that bans sex offenders from parks, schools, libraries and other places. The city has already agreed to stop enforcing it, and five other cities in Kern County which have similar ordinances may follow suit. Full Article
Shafter suspends enfocement of sex offender
- ·May 14, 2014
- ·13 Comments
Related Posts...
ACSOL Urges “NO” on Prop. 20, “YES” on Prop. 17
October 13, 2020
ACSOL Declares Virtual Conference a Success
October 12, 2020
CA Supreme Court Considers Prop. 57 Case
October 7, 2020
CA: Number of Registrants Decreases Slightly
September 17, 2020
CA Supreme Court Schedules Prop. 57 Oral Arguments on Oct. 7
September 16, 2020
Hmm…wonder what they could possibly come up with that will be in compliance with the constitutions. I love the way Janice spelled it out clear and simple, basically saying if these ordinances aren’t repealed they will be sued. I also wonder how the stays of enforcement are going to play out. So far Tony R and Santa Ana down in OC are the only ones resisting (thumbing their noses) state law. A foolish course of action, indeed!
where can we go to find out which city bans parks?
Due to letters sent and lawsuits filed, the number of cities that have ordinances which contain presence restrictions continues to change. Below is the current “scorecard”. Cities that have repealed and stayed enforcement of their ordinances are now safe for registered citizens and their families to visit. The newest addition is the City of Tustin which will consider repeal of their ordinance on June 3.
Repeals – 10
Costa Mesa
El Centro
Galt
Highland
Laguna Hills
Lake Forest
Lancaster
Redlands
Shafter
29 Palms
Stays of Enforcement – 9
Anaheim
Cypress
Grand Terrace
Huntington Beach
La Habra
Loma Linda
Seal Beach
Sierra Madre
South Pasadena
Lawsuits filed – 7
Pomona – March 24 – settlement pending
South Lake Tahoe – March 31 – settlement pending
National City – April 8
Carson – April 11
Lompoc – April 21 – lawsuit served – settlement discussions initiated
Sacramento County – April 30
Santa Ana – May 7
No replies – 32
Santee?
You SO rock, Janice!
E-GAD!! I stand corrected. I don’t know what these seven cities think they are going to accomplish by going against the law.
I must confess I have never heard of Shafter, California. But Shafter, California clearly has heard of California RSOL! He!
Thanks!!
The only thing more upsetting than these ordinance is when cities have these ordinances in their code and just decide not to enforce them. How can this be? An ordinance is a local law. The law is the law. Laws are to be enforced – to the, I’ll say it again, letter of the LAW. It is NOT up to the City Council or Law Enforcement to pick and chose which laws to enforce and which not.
I am in disbelief that John Q Public is not up in arms about this. Is American Idol really that interesting?
My theory is they have these ordinances as advertisements for their cities. See, we’re a safe place, we have an ordinance to protect children. The more neighboring cities have these laws the more the city who doesn’t looks like a less desirable place. Cities are businesses and their goal is to raise revenue to provide services. Just like the rest of our economy, they are geared to growth. They may not really have the money to back these ordinances up or desire to spend it that way if they had it, because deep down they know it is really not a public safety issue. If someone recognizes a person on the registry in a park and complains about it, then they will go and arrest him. Otherwise, instances of a registrant molesting someone in a park is very low probability. Not really worth spending much on it. They can easily lie to the people, and pretend there is a public safety issue, because who is going question that “sex offenders” need to be kept away from parks and children? The exception is CaRSOL, when it calls them on their lies with the facts. The smart ones see the gig is up and quietly submit. After all, if all the other cities have to do it, it takes the competition aspect away. The ones that are in denial fight, I guess to protect their egos.
Hi Tim:
This video is relevant to what you are saying; you may not agree, but I think you probably will. I think it brings your statement into focus and I understand the role of the media in our plight a little better after watching this video. I’ll go ahead and call the media a tool for mind control by anyone with a cause and deep pockets, mainly because I really don’t care what others think at this point in time; I care what I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JshARrVS_Q4
Tim; I didn’t know there was a part 2. Here it is in case you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYjjEv4HBXk
I’m happy to see this balanced broadcast without a reporter seeking a man on the street who thinks all hell’s about to break loose and children will be in imminent danger if this is repealed. If people think it through, what good is it to threaten someone with a misdemeanor if they’re intent on committing a felony? The only thing these presence restrictions accomplish is keeping law abiding registrants out of their children’s activities. We need to get back to the law and order days where we punish people for what they do, not what we think they’re going to do. Too many people are punished unfairly with this mania.
Hi Mike:
Don’t hold your breath or anything like that but if the OC DA has any kind of a hand in Santa Ana refusal to repeal their ordinance I fully expect to hear allot of stupid things and the Santa Ana cheerleaders will be singing the ignorant song titled “all hell’s about to break loose and children will be in imminent danger.”