Lompoc council to consider changes to sex offender ordinance [UPDATED with more media and video]

Lompoc’s City Council members tonight will consider easing loitering restrictions in the city’s sex offender ordinance to conform to state law, and temporarily suspending enforcement of residency limitations for registered offenders. Full Article

City Council Hearing Video (click on #9)

Update 7/16: Lompoc Council OKs settlement with registered sex offender (Lompoc Record)

Update 7/17: To Settle Lawsuit, Lompoc Council Agrees to Ease Restrictions for Sex Offenders (Noozhawk)

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.  
 

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

35 cities have repealed or stayed! That’s quite a few notches on Janice’s trusty ol six shooter 🙂 I just hope the outlaws on the city council, and their accomplices; the public, know that in this instance the word “amend,” which means to change or improve, such as a mistake, should mean “repeal.” And hopefully it will soon be realized “the public’s right to information on the whereabouts of registered sex offenders” is just as big of a mistake and about as necessary as presence restrictions.

Hopefully it will also be recognized that it’s morally reprehensible and unconstitutional to punish and keep retroactively punishing thousands (the number easily climbs into the millions when you include families) of people for what one individual did. And yes; I’m referring to prop 83 and similar laws. It’s pretty obvious and unfortunate that we are witnessing a mass stupor by the public over the manufactured issue of the “sex offender.” This makes it a high hill that Janice ET-AL have chosen to climb on the behalf of millions of people (let us not forget the families of registrants).

The only logical choice the city counsel has is to follow the recommendation of city attorney’s Joe Pannone and Lindsay Tabian and “suspend enforcement” of their illegal ordinances” and to pay up! Bunch of dummies! 🙂