Carson’s wide-reaching laws restricting registered sex offenders from approaching parks, child-care centers, public pools or other places where children gather will be on the chopping block Tuesday night when the City Council considers a lawsuit challenging the Municipal Code. Full Article
Related posts
-
AL: Alabama defends law limiting where sex offenders can go
Source: courthousenews.com 8/1/25 An Alabama law restricting sex offenders’ movements is under legal scrutiny after a... -
WI: Convicted Sex Offender’s Appeal Prompts Ordinance Change
Source: doorcountypulse.com 8/7/25 Following an appeal from a convicted sex offender, the Village of Forestville is... -
LA: Sex offender’s offer of lollipops to children at school bus stop leads to new state law
Source: shreveportbossieradvocate.com 8/7/25 Sex offender’s offer of lollipops to children at school bus stop leads to...
Since these stupid people have to have someone they totally hate for no good reason tell them “The city of Carson Municipal Code violates the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution,” something their city attorney should have told them in the first place then they need to repeal and pay. These stupid people on city counsels in this state don’t seem to know anything about the very principals they swore to uphold. They are a mentally insulting pathetic lot.
I think $3,000 isn’t nearly enough and that they should be asked for more. but that is not my business; I’m just saying. Janice has been accused of being in this fight solely for monetary reasons by some of these bigoted idiots. These people on these city counsels being sued are a sad bunch of people handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness and unreasoning prejudice. The experience of losing this lawsuit should humble these city counsels, but instead many of them have chosen to totally disregard the principals they swore to uphold and conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the way they portray themselves. Are we the only ones that notice this?
Glad to see this happening in Carson as well. I much as I wish it were true … I don’t think the last paragraph of the article is correct. Says that State law doesn’t restrict were registrants can live – isn’t that up for debate still? On whether PC290 does or does NOT apply across the board or to only those on parole?? Like I wrote, I wish what she wrote as fact were true – then residency restrictions would be a moot point.
“Among other differences, state law does not restrict sex offenders from loitering near places where children congregate or place restrictions on where they can live in relation to child-care centers.”
Isn’t it a federal offense to fall back on a sworn duty to uphold the constitution?