Pomona takes steps to repeal part of its sex offender ordinance

Admin

POMONA >> Members of the Pomona City Council have taken steps leading to the repeal of part of a 2008 ordinance regulating the presence of sex offenders in the city.

Council members gave preliminary approval at their June 16 meeting to an ordinance repealing a portion of the 2008 local regulation and they are expected to have a final vote July 7. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good that they repealed the ordinance restricting where you can go. But it is even more important to outlaw their local restrictions on where you can live. Yes, I understand that court challenge is pending.

0
Reply

Lawyers representing Ontario have participated “in informal discussions with the plaintiff’s counsel,” (City Attorney John) Brown said. The purpose of the discussions is “to see what they wish to achieve.”

For the time being, “we anticipate we will be defending (the lawsuit) into the immediate future,” Brown said.

You really need to go there, Counselor Brown? I assume you have had to review SOME constitutional law in your esteemed career, as well as your basic training. What we want to “achieve” is constitutional parity with other citizens. What’s so hard to figure out?

0
Reply

Good that they are looking seriously at this, bad that they are only taking steps to overturn part of it instead of all of it.

0
Reply

I sent the reporter an email asking her about access to the election polls in Pomona to change the law. If you limit where people can live, you there for limit votes.

0