ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


Bill To Revive Restrictions On Sex Offender Housing Stalls

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


Senate committee kills public safety measure designed to clarify sex-offender restrictions

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Has the State Board of Equalization come out with their official response? 😉 Parks Dept?

Fight with calls and letters! Takes less than 5 minutes to all all the Senate Public Safety Committee members and state your opposition.

we conquered again against mrs runner maybe she will give up this fight against us

I do not know.
I think we need to have the CA Dept of Justice check to see if there were any abused being done with this and. “State Board of Equalization”

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.

This is their legacy, Prop 83 is their only political platform and they will do anything to save their drowning baby. I am sorry to say they will be back, even on crutches.

Don’t worry, Mr. Runner, using his position in BOE just published something he calls “Cannabis Compliance Project Pilot”. With this, he may get just enough voters later when he runs for Governor (again?).

Something tells me he ran for Governor once. With this new tool, he’ll get what he wants.

BooYa …!!……runber runber runber …have a’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?

The Senate Public Safety Committee conducted a hearing on June 30 during which it considered Senate Bill 54 (SB 54). The bill, if passed, would (1) overturn a recent CA Supreme Court decision that declared blanket residency restrictions for registered citizens on parole to be unconstitutional and (2) prevent most registered citizens from obtaining judicial relief from those restrictions.

The bill would not, as described by Senator Runner’s staff, break a stalemate created by the CA Supreme Court, and prevent 5 to 10 years of litigation. Instead, the bill would create litigation throughout the state of California.

Testimony at the June 30 hearing included opposition from 15 people including representatives of the CA Sex Offender Management Board, the Public Defenders Association, ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and California Reform Sex Offender Laws. By comparison, the only testimony in support of the bill came from one organization — Crime Victims United — a non-profit financed by a prison guards union.

Following the testimony, Chairwoman Loni Hancock stated her opposition to the bill and encouraged the bill’s author, Senator Sharon Runner, to meet with the Sex Offender Management Board which opposes residency restrictions, in general, and SB 54, in particular. Senators Mark Leno and Carol Liu joined Hancock in opposing the bill.

The remaining Democratic members of the Committee – Bill Monning and Steven Glazer — abstained from voting on SB 54. Prior to abstaining, Monning noted that if the bill passed, registered citizens would require an attorney in order to seek judicial relief. Glazer’s abstention may have been based on the fact that he has been a senator for less than a month and a member of the Public Safety Committee for even less time.

The only committee members who voted in favor of SB 54 were Senators Anderson and Stone, the two Republican members of that committee. In order to obtain the committee’s approval and move on to the floor of the Senate, SB 54 needed four “aye” votes. It received only two. This led to the following headline in one daily newspaper: “Senate Panel Kills Runners Sex Offender Residency Bill.”

Why then did a different newspaper publish the headline, “Bill to Revive Restrictions on Sex Offender Housing Stalls?” The answer is that Senator Runner requested the possibility of a second hearing on SB 54, a request that was granted – with a condition. Senator Runner must revise SB 54 and the Senate Public Safety Committee must conduct a hearing on the revised bill no later than July 14, the date of its last hearing this year.

In order to put the final nails in the coffin of SB 54, California RSOL will send a new letter to members of the Public Safety Committee asking them to oppose this bill. Please send your letter as well as make one more set of phone calls to the members of the Public Safety Committee no later than July 13. Also please attend and/or testify at the committee hearing on July 14.

Once again, it’s time to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up. For if you do these simple tasks, we shall overcome not someday, but on July 14.

In fact Crime Victims United was conceived and created by the
CCPOA (California Correctional Peace Officers Association). So it goes a bit deeper than just financial support.

Crime Victims United is a way for the CCPOA to deceive people into thinking that there is support for bills from 2 entities, when in reality the CCPOA and Crime Victims United can, for all intents and purposes, be considered one in the same.

The CCPOA created Crime Victims United to help push stiffer laws and sentences to keep their people employed by keeping the prisons filled beyond capacity.

A Parallel Universe, (Alex Landon and Elaine Halleck,) Chapter 15 “War on Crime 1939-2008” p153 ¶3

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.

Listen to the hearing. As soon as she made reference to “Jennifer Lunsford” (she being one of the authors of California’s ‘Jessica’s Law’) I know she was not quite with it…. seriously.

I agree Guest. Sharon came across as ill informed and un prepared. She stumbled over what no doubt George had written. Personally I think she is just a puppet for George.

What she did not rely on was the fact that her lies would be exposed and truth and common sense might have a fighting chance of becoming part of the equation.

That did in fact happen and it is probably something that puts her in such an extreme state of denial, she must continue to spread the untruths and exaggerations in hope that somehow it will become truth. This could be how simple this is and very sad indeed for ALL citizens who believe in what our constitution represents and how we (should) enjoy unalienable rights.

She counted on this new agency to get on the ignorance, fear hate express
and add to the numbers of voting stiffs that believe that it is right to heap any amount of punishment on registrants just because they are unpopular.

This can be broken down in an infinite number of ways, but sensible, realistic and workable solutions is reasonably the charter of CASOMB and thus we have recommendations that will help with societal integration of registrants. Leper colonies are simply what she has in mind. How someone can be proud of that is beyond any reasonable person’s grasp.

I suppose much of the same holds true for her counterpart in what appears to be an unethical or misguided use of BOE time and resources.

It is obvious the only reason Runner voted for the board’s creation in the first place was to be able to document the “obvious facts” that sex offenders “have a high rate of recidivism” and that they could “never be cured.” Since those fallacies were not documented, as obviously they COULD NOT be documented, Run-run’s ploy backfired, and she can only play out her diatribe on fumes.

I for one, would like the Runners and their club keep making noise in this empty barrel. Soon, they will be treated like a barking dogs at 3 AM

yes and hopefully hauled off to the pound – their rightful place after what hatred in their souls has been exposed.

@mike t said: “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.”
Actually with residency restrictions like those in Jessica’s Law, registrants will be driven away from urban areas and into more rural areas like the districts of Runner, Anderson and Stone. How ironic. Talk about not thinking things through! How would their constituents feel about having a migration of registrants out of the cities into their towns?

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

This state would like to believe that anyone under 18 is a child. However, in 30 other states, that penal code for which you are registering is not even in the books nor would you have been arrested in the first place since age of consent is 16.

Anyhow, you’d be surprised how many DAs and law enforcement don’t know the difference between 288(a) and 288a. HUGE difference especially when one requires public disclosure and Megan’s Law profile. The other does not. Make sure they know the difference in your case.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x