SACRAMENTO (AP) — A bill seeking to revive broad restrictions on where sex offenders can live in California has stalled in a state Senate committee. Republican Sen. Sharon Runner of Lancaster introduced SB54 after the state Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting all sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks goes too far.
State parole officers now impose the restriction only on pedophiles and others whose sex crimes involved children. Full Article
Related
Senate committee kills public safety measure designed to clarify sex-offender restrictions
Has the State Board of Equalization come out with their official response? 😉 Parks Dept?
we conquered again against mrs runner maybe she will give up this fight against us
Thank you Janice and all that stoodup spokeup and took action in this fight.
Well, I wish the Runners would find some other hobby, this one is getting on my nerves.
BooYa …!!……runber runber runber …have a snickers..you’re not you when your no no isn’t working…and your paranoid agenda isn’t working either…cover some of that gray with just for men…it might be the only thing might work for you…only your hairdresser will know …just for men ..just not
for moustache …manly yes. .but she’ll like it tooooooo.
YES!!!! What great news! Thank you Janice and all that were involved in making our voices heard! … “Stalled” …. Means what exactly? (I know what it means ) but, what does it mean to a bill? Dead? No, because that is different than “stalls” … Right?
well, I typed my question above before I read what others posted on the other TITLE … seems stalled = dead, right?
You know; the Runners are kind of like a disease or a sickness that abhors truth. Those two must be in full flight from reality, considering these unconstitutional laws are by and large starting to be scrapped because it’s now known that they are infective in their stated purpose.
The only things these laws do is violate the Constitution and Bill of rights, as well as a slew of other laws. One has to wonder why the Runners refuse to admit the truth; their baby was ill conceived and now the truth that their law is useless and unconstitutional is starting to come out.
Wow just when we thought it might be done and over with. This is madness and has got to stop. I don’t see how the runners can change this bill to be any benefit for anyone but their own agenda.
I do hope Mrs. Runner accepts the invitation to meet with CASOMB. It seems pretty clear that she is missing some of the key points and elements of how ineffective and damaging these residency restriction laws are. I don’t hold much hope for her as her agenda seems to have over-ridden her common sense. A Large percentage of reformed individuals who are working hard to conform to such lunacy would be caught in a grinder if this were to pass.
How much of our court systems resources do we want to spend determining if a person who committed a sex offense 20-30 yrs. ago will be safe moving into a new community? Maybe they should make it a trial by jury of our peers since they were the folks who voted for the residency restrictions to begin with. This would be a double-edged sword. It would give the NIMBY-ists an opportunity to face the facts and become educated, maybe use a little critical thinking, on how shuffling registered citizens around doesn’t make a community safer. And it will piss them off for having been pulled out of work to listen to such rubbish.
I’m not surprised to hear that Jeff Stone voted FOR this. He has always run a “Stupid on crime” platform. I’m glad to see him leave RivCo. But, I’m not pleased to see him on the senate safety committee. He needs a visit from the three ghosts.
I’m at a loss. I don’t know how to handle it when the government, as a whole, shows common sense for a change.
Now, on to the “high” speed rail project.
15 people opposed which is awesome!
Thanks for showing up!
So she have about 15 days to change the wording?
The last time you met the bill was dead.
What the difference between the 2 and why was she given a chance to reword them?
Who are “children”? Those under 14 or 18?
They keep telling me I have a 288, but I have a 288ab1