ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


BEAUMONT: Council to weigh sex offender residency restrictions [UPDATED]

The Beaumont City Council may repeal local sex offender residency restrictions when it meets on Tuesday, April 7. The state Supreme Court has ruled such regulations are unconstitutional. Full Article

April 9: BEAUMONT: City set to repeal sex offender residency restrictions   (First Reading)
City Council Hearing / at 71:20 (with reference to Presence lawsuits)

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    Let’s hope Beaumont (a few miles up the fwy from me) repeals their dubious law. I hope more cities wake up and smell the fecal matter they have been fed for so long is just that; a bunch of BS and the total opposite of true. Anyone heard anything about N Korea west (Carson)?

    • j

      Last time I heard they had declared war on the State and US Constitution. They are probably home breaking open their piggy banks and otherwise preparing themselves for the cost of their antics.

      • Q

        Well; I hope their piggy bank is a small one so they don’t drag their foolishness on for too long.

  2. Michael

    A few days after the court ruling George Runner, the co-sponsor of Prop. 83/Jessica’s Law, was on KFI’s John and Ken show where he admitted that “there is nothing magical about 2000 feet” .
    He further admitted that the ONLY reason that they selected 2000 ft was that that was what passed legal challenges in other states.

    (Still, he clung to his Chicken Little like rhetoric by further saying the “with this ruling, even now, a sex offender may be moving in across the street from a school)

    The ONLY reason? But, George, you and told us that 2000 feet was what was NEEDED to protect our children.
    Now you tell us that it was just a made up number? In short, a lie?

    What else di you, and the Prop, 83 supporters lire to the people about to get it passed?

    It was a stupid premise to began with. In order for that 2000 ft premise to be valid, they would have had to have had evidence that said;
    Statics show that if a currently registered sex offender lives within 2000 feet of a school or park there is a high probability he WIIL offend again AND his victim will be someone with a direct connections to that school or park AND the molestation.

    There was no evidence or study that showed that. People just believed the made up number that if ALL RSOs lived greater than 2000 feet from a school or park, their kids would be safe.

    Never mind that ALL RSOs are not pedophiles and/or sexually violent predators, or that strange sexual assaults on children account for less then 5% of molestation. As long as ALL RSOs are painted with the same brush and not living within 2000 feet of a school or park, kids will be safe. It is and was nonsense on the face of it.

    There has been study after study after study that clearly showed that such residency and presence had NO effect on the safety of children. And not ONE study that shows that they have.

    And that is what the court ruled that the restrictions were “arbitrary” (read, made up = a lie) and that they bore “NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP to the State’s goal of protecting children”.

    Besides, even if an RSO, who was an SVP who lived 2000 feet form any school or park, you don’t think he cold drive, or bike or walk or take a bus over to those areas. Now what?

    How would anyone know he was there? By the trench coat he was wearing in August? Not likely.

    yup, parents were sold a bill of goods with prop. 83, and it was the kids who cold have suffered because of it.

    The link below is to another RATIONAL perspective. Read it carefully and you’ll see how politicians fooled the people and put kids at risk, just to make themselves look good to the voters.

    • Harry

      Under my initiative proposal, Truth in Legislation, the Runners, would go to jail, for lying. Because, they no reason for Prop. 83.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *