ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


Let local governments set safety zones for children: Guest commentary

California’s sex offender laws are blanket policies that may not properly capture all of the nuances needed in various communities. While the state has laws that restrict where sex offenders can live, it is clear that communities know best where local children are most vulnerable and it is critical that local authorities have the necessary tools to protect them.

Jessica’s Law already prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks, but it does not restrict them from spending time in parks, community centers or other places where children may gather. Local jurisdictions need the authority to pass their own laws tailored to their individual community’s concerns. Full Commentary

State Sen. Connie M. Leyva, D-Chino, represents the 20th Senate District. Assemblyman Marc Steinorth, R-Rancho Cucamonga, represents the 40th Assembly District. The are the Co-Authors of SB 267


California RSOL to lobby in Sacramento April 13/14

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And there it is.

Somewhere behind every gentle breeze, a raging storm grows.

The sheeple will read “protect children” and forget anything else said before or after…

It will never stop unless we get registration as a whole overturned. This is reality and even though the small victories are great it will not end without overturning registration as a whole. So untill organizations are willing to challenge sex offender registration and notification laws we can just expect it to get worse and worse. I hate to be pessimistic but that’s reality.

Not even going to bother reading the rest of the article after the first several paragraphs because this is just ANOTHER DO GOODER FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR CAREER, that is ignorant of the actual facts about people on the registry, calling for the state to sanction the removal of our rights by individual cities (what we have been fighting). Here is another kook who doesn’t know what she is talking about in rearguards to people forced to register.

She is asking for the state to allow individual cities to create and enforce presence restrictions; she calls them “safety zones.”

If you read between the lines, what is really being outlined here are safety zones for ensuring the political futures of bottom feeding politicians.

To the people in support of these revisited draconian ideas: Wipe the sleep from your eyes, shake the cobwebs out of your heads and clean the wax out of your ears. Then (carefully) read the CDCR findings and the try REAL hard to understand the reasons that the court had to intervene in the first place. If you still have time after that, read the constitution.

Apparently these “bottom feeders” never consider human rights. I’m equally sure the thought of the Constitution and Bill of Rights never occur in their self serving minds. And I’m totally positive these bottom feeder types NEVER look at the fact’s; let alone research the subject by looking at empirical studies, reports and statistics.

They don’t even try to be good at the job they took (to represent the people), they just do their best to take advantage of any given situation; like all the ignorance surrounding the manufactured “sex offender” problem.

However, comments are worth reading.

You’re right, I got so animated when I read the article, I ended up repeating what had already been posted. On the up side: Great minds think alike!

“Ready; Shoot; Aim” is much less harmless in a comment however, than it is when these people craft laws that the predictable outcome of voters doing the same.

Let’s be honest here. The “spirit of SB 267” is not to empower local authorities to keep kids safe, it is to empower local authorities to oppress registrants beyond the scope of the current state law and to exploit those same registrants for political gain. If they truly wanted to keep kids safe, they would keep them away from family, clergy, family friends and relatives, etc…the ones who commit over 90% of all sex crimes against children. “Stranger Danger” is a myth!

More alarmist dribble from a skewed and prejudiced source that apparently thinks that mom & pop administration of complicated criminal justice matters is best handled in the sandbox by constitutional midgets – and that’ being kind…

Seems like these people don’t even educate themselves on the current trends with this whole mess. They are seemingly unaware that the courts have been ruling in favor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Their heads seem to be stuck in 2006 / 2007

Maybe even 1991.

Well that’s one Democrat we know not to vote for and tell all our friends and family members not to vote her either

The co-authors of lame267 need to honor their oath of public service and protect defend the Constitution …furthermore ..those derelict of duty failures need a Robert. Kennedy law onto them as well …..during your breaks….during your lunch..take the time to read the Constitution ………….just as Mr. Kennedy told the sheriff and district attorney of Kern county california .

Citing false and rhetorical data from now defunct and debunked sources dating back twenty-five years should be a wake up call for everyone observing this distortion.

Why do they get to stretch the truth and attempt to turn it into statute? Not only should these bills not pass, the authors should be reprimanded by the legislature for including lies in the bills. What happened to ethics?

I say screw it all… If you’re on parole/probation you got your restrictions… when you are off parole/probation its over… and this is how I feel about the registration, once you are done you are off it

Bluewall, Do you know something that I don’t? “and this is how I feel about the registration, once you are done you are off it”. As far as I know, registration is still a LIFE sentence in CA, unless you can get a C.O.R. in which many of us cannot. Consensual sex with a minor (15 or younger) that includes “oral cop” and your toast.

You missed his point. Bluewall is simply stating that this is how the registry should work: if the state wants its precious registry, then keep it only for those currently on parole/probation. Then once that is completed, registration should be done.

He’s only being hypothetical.

My Bad, I missed that. And I agree 100% with his position.

Since these local city governments have staff psychologists, criminal justice professionals, specialized facilities and resources, and the money to rehabilitate “serious” offenders, they should reimburse the State for all prosecution, incarceration and rehabilitation costs for every registrant living in their jurisdictions and those who run afoul of their municipal restrictions. Then they can show the CDCR how it is done and properly administer justice. They should write this into their code as well. It might just then start to dawn on them the enormity and complexity of this problem and MAYBE this will be a spark in some long dormant… Read more »

Unconstitutional. Unnecessary. Tries to “solve” a problem that does not exist. Needlessly disrupts the lives of people who are struggling to get over the past and put together a better present and future.

Politicians like this try to turn the populace into “infants for life”—-in permanent need of so-called ‘protection’. Here is my attitude: when white male politicians claim they are trying to protect you or your family, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.

What’s interesting is how the government has so much power over what is taught about government in our public schools.
It’s no wonder most of us are duped into trusting it and it’s leaders.

This is no more than re-election politics and preying, no, political predators, preying on the innocent childlike minds of the ignorant voting public. Sure, let the locals take care of it, but let the locals pay for it too! Local governments are totally dependent on the state and federal teats they suck dry, forcing taxpayers to fork over some new “fee”. All of Kalifornia is so screwed up, from the high speed rail from Fresno to Madera (30 miles) to the state created water shortage. Soon there will be no more of anything for anybody. Perhaps the impending economic disaster… Read more »

In the comment section of the article I kept posting (3x) the facts of them matter and how the Runners lied and the court finding…in short the FACTS and EVIDENCE re these residency and presence restriction….and “they” kept deleting the post. Last time I started off by saying if the post was deleted, I wanted to know why. They didn’t tell me So I trimmed it all down to this. Lets see if it lasts: 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… Read more »

So in theory, if this passes, we would no longer be permitted to travel to beaches parks or anywhere where children gather. Add to that the international travel ban. Doesn’t that truly make us prisoners again? I believe lawmakers will be the one’s that end the registry.

At some point even the strongest camel’s back will break… the question is, will you be around to see it? And will there be a camel left to break.

It is my gut feeling that this country is headed for implosion. No empire has lasted forever. Be the reason the prisons, the national debt, the poverty, the changing weather / drought, world demographics or a combination thereof.

Oh well, it was a good run…

It will still be up to the city/county if they want to pass these ordinances. My particular city never passed them in the past and did not enforce Jessica’s law while the infamous city, that Janice led a march against, right next door did. Doesn’t mean that all cities won’t eventually lose their minds and set into place new ordinances if passed though.

Yes, you are correct, and good for your city. However, the minute you go to another city, your goose is potentially cooked. You could drive to a city, break down in front of a park and be arrested. You could walk into a McDonalds and be arrested. You could go to a store and be arrested. You could attend a wedding and be arrested. The real danger here is you can have entire cities decide on their own that RC’s can’t be within 10 miles of a day care or bus stop, effectively banning people from the city. Its overwhelmingly… Read more »

Jo, along with each town/city/hamlet having their own restrictions, we should also bear in mind that these laws will also be ever-changing as each new mayor or councilman panders for votes by making thier laws ever more harsh, adding new no-go places, and expanding proximity distances.

The thing is, once these politicians fail to get this dishonest and ruinous measure through the legislature they will repackage it as an initiative for the vote of the people. This has always worked for them – viz Proposition 83 and the more recent sex trafficking measure (which didn’t limit itself to sex trafficking.) Yes, we see that an increasing number of people are seeing through these vicious laws, but I wouldn’t hold my breath until a majority finally votes against such a measure. The law would, of course, start a rapid race to the bottom, in which municipalities compete… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x