Fullerton Council to Revise Sex Offender Ban in Parks

Fullerton’s ban on convicted sex offenders in city parks will likely be revised in the wake of court rulings and a potential lawsuit. Since the 1940s, California has wrestled with laws that deal with convicted sex offenders and what they can and cannot do after they are released from prison and complete parole.

In the past four years, about half of Orange County cities adopted laws that banned adults convicted of sexually abusing children from living near or going into city parks. Full Article

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

Ahh; Fullerton. The town that spawned a group of murderers wearing police uniforms. A town I used to live in and a town I “thought” was alright. But then again, that was in another life all together. I wouldn’t have paid this little piece much attention were it not for ¶2 and the misleading nature of what is said in that paragraph. California hasn’t struggled with laws that deal with convicted “sex offenders” (God! I hate that misleading label) since the 1940s as Tracy Wood states; the self imposed phantom struggle didn’t start until the 1990s, and then took off like a rocket between 2002 and 2006.

Tracy demonstrates the kind of ignorance that by all rights needs to be kicked to the curb. I almost wish Fullerton would dig it’s ill informed heel’s into the dirt and get a legal smack across the face 🙂 Ever since I’ve been relegated to a lower caste status I’ve watched how that town mistreats, oppresses, publicly shames and otherwise maligns registrants, as all other towns do. It’s kind of funny that you kind of get the sense that Fullerton and the author have never heard of CA-RSOL; I have a feeling every town in the state is going to know about us real soon. I suppose it’s a good thing their attorneys know if they oppose state law and thumb their nose at us they will be starting a fight they know they will lose.

It’s ironic; at the time I was living in Fullerton I had the beautiful Caucasian significant other and the beautiful blond haired, blue eyed and very photogenic 8 yo little girl that called me dad. Since her mom was always preoccupied with her career and other things I was the one that did all of the functions associated with our blond haired blue eyed bundle of energy, like brownie and school functions and much of the shopping; people used to say we were joined at the hip. It’s also ironic; once I got pulled over by the Fullerton police and warned that it was illegal for me to have a pick up truck loaded front and rear with lat least 15 little girls; we were delivering and selling brownie calendars. But like I already said. That was in another life.

The Fullerton City Council tonight decided to delay for two weeks their decision regarding whether to revise or repeal their ordinance. This decision was made after significant pressure from a local group. California RSOL will continue to monitor the progress of actions taken by the City of Fullerton toward the ultimate goal of removing all presence restrictions from that city. If the City chooses otherwise, they could be subject to a lawsuit due to the recent CA Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions.

Janice Bellucci, isn’t it not to your financial benefit to go ahead and file suit now so you can win attorney fees? Just wondering.

They’re just gonna lose. California Supreme Court denied review, so the appellate decision is upheld. And that, my friends, is what we call the Law. Something these people know nothing about. Thank God our founding fathers had enough foresight to draft a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I wonder if these people are even aware of what’s happened to the other cities that didn’t want to let go of their illegal ordinances? Instead of just repealing their ordinances cities had to $ pay attorney fees and court costs $ as well as repeal their presence restriction ordinances anyway. The state says these presence restrictions are illegal so resistance is self defeating at this point. I’m reasonably sure they’ll find out and do what is wise.

When Janice says the city is trying to answer the constituents “needs” I hope she means the city of Fullerton is referring to education. To me these presence restrictions are all based on what some would call misinformation; I prefer to be more realistic and call their “needs” a belief in fear based lies. I think this is what they need to address and education is the only way put their fear to rest. This is probably going to be another missed opportunity by another city to educate themselves and the people they serve.

There’s more beyond the surface here. Most people don’t know how easy it is to get put on the Sex Offender Registry. There has been children on the sex offender registry as young as 9 years old. Punitive measures are added Ex-post facto at the whim of any politician looking to get elected (like that of the DA). Making the registrant their new whipping boy for votes. What about the rights of the registrant’s child? Don’t they have a right to be with their parent? These laws break more than constitutional law and the God given right (spiritual law) of a parent to be with their child but it also breaks natural law. Even a mother bear is allowed to be with her cubs, but for a registrant and their child these laws dare to break those fundamental God given rights. Really? Where are we in pre-1945 Germany? Oh, about the sheriff giving out passes for registrants to go to parks. Why would a law enforcement agency give out passes for people to break the law? Sometimes Kids get hurt in parks and beaches. Whether by falling from a tree, drowning or choking on a hot-dog. It seems okay to violate the registrant child’s safety by disallowing their first line of defense (their parents) to be there. Ladies and gentlemen these kind of laws are not for freedom but tyranny. The numbers and facts don’t justify these fear based draconian laws. TRUTH

Hi Robert Curtis:

There’s been talk of a post-constitutional America in some circles.


Does that mean that they want this law to stay but don’t want to be the 1st in line in court?

Even if they, and other cities, do not remove the ordinance, is it not now null and voild and unenforceable after the recent court decisions?

If they do not remove it, in light of those court decisions, what’s the pratical harm?
They make an knowingly illegal arrest of someone violating the ordinance, and the person arrested gets a big settlement?