AR: Bill to Ban Sex Offenders from Museums

Rather than go see a movie, or hang out at home, today Kelly Gifford decided to take her son to a museum.

“It’s a great opportunity for my son to have a good time while he’s learning,” Gifford says.

She says she learned pretty quickly though that unlike a movie theater or her living room, museums and parks come with their fair share of distractions.

“They’re kids. They’re going to run around,” she says.

And perhaps nothing is scarier for a parent than the moment a child leaves their sight.

“You always want your kids in arm’s length. In a place like this where there is so much to see and do. It’s critical that this is a safe space for them,” she says.

That’s why state representative Kathy Swan suggests Missouri put about 500 ft. worth of distance between places like these and registered sex offenders. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. 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.
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

From the article:

While the bill would likely not stop an unknown sex offender from walking into the added places, it would allow police to take action if the offenders were discovered there.

As well as this:

“A museum for the purpose of educating and entertaining children under the age of 18,” [Representative Kelly] Swan describes.

So… a museum isn’t made for all people, just anyone under 18? Also, a museum is for educating and entertaining. Thus, registrants aren’t allowed to be educated or have any entertainment?

So a registrant can be detained for doing non-criminal actions? Isn’t there a case law that already stated you can’t do anything to a registrant on a presumption of criminal activity when there is no criminal activity to be prompted?

Oh hey… and now registrants are also banished from museums. Might as well as include forestry parks, national parks… oh why not extend this to Washington, DC. Ban registrants from seeing the Lincoln statue or MLK commemorative? Oh what about sports venues?

So… once you’ve served your time, you still are a servant of the state b/c of the registry. Are you a free citizen? If so, then why are you compelled to do such service? All this is prohibited, but no one wants to associate registrants to involuntary servitude or slavery… well… b/c the SCOTUS categorized registrants as monsters as a whole – 80% recidivism rate.

Such a defamation of character.

The bill’s author should be asked to cite statistics for why this is needed. But my guess is that it won’t be questioned and will pass unanimously, as anti-SO bills usually do.

Another solution to a nonexistent problem.

I can’t believe how stupid people are, they are going to arrest someone for wanting to see a mockup of the Pliestocene. Yeah, a museum is not the best place to learn of primitive culture, anyway. Why look at statues? The live troglodytes can be seen inhabiting today’s state capitol buildings. Go there and learn their superstitious ways.

This bill looks to be in MO not AR as the title states.

There are many children’s museums around this country that no normal adult would want to go to without bringing a child with them. (It would be weird to see a single adult climbing aboard the fire engine, being in the coloring room, etc, etc…) I would not abject to any of these museums having a policy to not sell tickets to any single adults not with a child. An exception would be for fundraising events directed towards adults at the museum. But banning a registered citizen with a child is wrong. It only punishes their child. On the other hand, if a single adult did go into a children’s museum, I’m sure the staff would be watching that person carefully. I think common sense could be more useful than any new law.

Wow, this is one of the shortest Bills I’ve ever seen. Since it’s so short, I’ll post it here.

566.150. 1. Any person who has been found guilty of: Violating any of the provisions of this chapter or the provisions of section 568.020, incest; section 568.045, endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree; section 573.200, use of a child in a sexual performance; section 573.205, promoting a sexual performance by a child; section 573.023, sexual exploitation of a minor; section 573.025, promoting child pornography; or section 573.040, furnishing pornographic material to minors; or (2) Any offense in any other jurisdiction which, if committed in this state, would be a violation listed in this section; shall not knowingly be present in or loiter within five hundred feet of any real property comprising any public park with playground equipment [or], a public swimming pool, or any museum with the primary purpose of entertaining or educating children under eighteen years of age. The first violation of the provisions of this section is a class E felony. A second or subsequent violation of this section is a class D felony.

So in effect, this has nothing to do with the registry.

This lists particular crimes, and if ever in the past been found guilty of that crime anywhere in the United States, you are banned forever from being within 500 feet of these locations or you’ve committed a felony.

Please tell me we have some SCOTUS ruling somewhere that addresses if it is ok or not to write laws preventing people from doing normally legal things just because they were once found guilty of a crime?

Another example of lousy parents not taking responsibility for their children and I didn’t know Deplorables visit museums

Would love to see a registrant move next door to Rep. Swan!
Maybe she’d realize they are just people, not the monsters she wants her constituents to think they are.