Fullerton City Council Revises Sex Offender Ordinance

The Fullerton City Council voted 4 to 1 to revise its sex offender ordinance by removing all presence restrictions.  The vote took place on May 21 and a second vote is required to finalize the Council’s decision.
“The City of Fullerton is to be commended for its decision to remove presence restrictions from its ordinance,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci.  “After the revisions become effective, registered citizens will be free to visit parks and other recreational areas within the city without the fear of arrest.”
Fullerton is 1 of 22 cities that have either agreed to repeal or already repealed  their presence restrictions.  The additional cities include Apple Valley, Anaheim, Claremont, Costa Mesa, Downey, El Centro, Galt, Highland, Holtville, Huntington Beach, Laguna Hills, Lancaster, Placerville, Porterville, Rancho Santa Margarita, Santee, Shafter, Suisun City, Tehachapi, Tustin and 29 Palms.  Most repeal actions occurred after a series of letters from CA RSOL during the period January 20 through April 30.

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
  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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is that what they call complying with the law; revise? It sounds like the bottom line is they repealed their illegal presence restriction ordinance. I suppose they think it makes them look like they actually has some sort of control and a choice; I think this can be seen as pride. I believe definition #3 & #4 apply here. Whatever!

pride (prīd)
1. A sense of one’s own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.
3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
4. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit.

What about residency restrictions?? I spent 6 Months in county jail and got out and couldnt live in fullerton when I got out because of the absurd ordonance.

We can thankfully add South Lake Tahoe to the growing list who’ve voted to repeal their presence restriction law.


However the compliance may be viewed, I give my 3 cheers to Janice and her team at rsol. I further more would like to say a BIG Thank You to all of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

… has “revised” its ordinance. With the recent rulings they shouldn’t have an ordinance to begin with since they all seem to lead to chaos ultimately and effectively sidetrack the intention of the state management and oversight duties.

Any local ordinance is essentially a conflict of interest and the introduction of superfluous data with questionable integrity and intentions always seems the be at the heart and spirit of these local ordinances. This suggests a clear intention to punish again and again without proper jurisdiction.

It says that a second vote is needed to finalize the coucils decision, has that happened?