Dems Kill Safety Bill (Commentary by Sen. Sharon Runner)

Admin

Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to make the sex offender residency restrictions in voter-approved Jessica’s Law more workable, while still keeping the integrity of the law intact. Senate Bill 54 was designed to clarify any confusion caused by In Re Taylor, the recent decision of the California Supreme Court regarding the California Department of Corrections’ enforcement of sex offenders in San Diego County. Full Commentary

Related

Janice’s Journal: Senate Bill 54 – Is the Battle Over? Maybe, Maybe Not

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well Sharon , you may mean well but this bill like many others are not necessary . I’m sure most sex offenders would support a bill that truly protects the children. When making laws in the future lawmakers must consider that we have already paid our debt to society so stop making laws that are retroactive and I are infringing on what little rights we still have .

0
Reply

Ms. Runner’s integrity have been pushed into a corner and she is not smart enough to stop her rant. Actually, I hope she keeps flapping.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

I would gladly give $200 to sponsor an expanded version of the “Intolerant Jackass Act” proposition.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/23/the_intolerant_jackass_act_a_brilliant_response_to_that_kill_the_gays_bill.html

0
Reply

LOL! Great comments follow Sen. Runner’s own article! And Sen. Runner is lying again: the Dems did NOT kill her Bill – in fact, she was given the opportunity to revise her Bill and return it to the Committee for a second hearing. It is she who FAILED to return it to Committee in a timely manner, not the Democrats.

0
Reply

I doubt she could return it to committee because there wasn’t anyway to change it that would pass muster. It’s a unworkable bill no matter how norrowed or tailored it is.

0
Reply

Strange; I can’t access this commentary from this site or the web. Oh well; I don’t want to hear her drivel anyway. 🙂

0

If, as George Runner said on KFIs John & Ken show shortly after the San Diego decision, there is/was nothing magical (in protecting kids) about the 2000 foot restriction, AND that the ONLY reason they picked it was that it stood up to court challenges in other states,
then HOW is it going to be effective in Sharon Runner’s “more workable” bill, even if you just limit it to level III and/or SVP offenders?
If there is no magic to it, how would it then magically change to having a the RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP to protecting children that it does not now have?

0
Reply