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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

When they started going after juveniles many years ago, I remember thinking ” ahh, their agenda is to get ’em while their young”. To all those unsuspecting parents who were programmed to think the sex offender laws were passed to help keep their families safe- you were duped.

The devil casts a wide net.

Another cert to SCOTUS about another draconian RC restriction. I know many states, including mine, request and hold this type of information (which is bad enough), but to publish it? That’s a whole different matter.

SCOTUS sure is getting a boatload of RC cert requests, aren’t they? Good! In some way, they are going to have to address this cancer. In all fairness to SCOTUS, they never said anything about restrictions being okay. They only said registries, and public dissemination of them, are constitutional. It’s the legislative bodies across the country who have run ape-sh*t crazy with restrictions.

That these cases are finally rising to the top is a wonderful thing. SCOTUS cannot ignore this issue forever. IMHO, this can onlyl help tip SCOTUS towards accepting Snyder, which I think they will anyway given the CVSG ( Hopefully SCOTUS uses Snyder to cast a wider net and catches a whole bunch of these ridiculous laws and kills them…though I don’t foresee their doing so.

I continue to pray for SCOTUS and other courts to have the wisdom and courage to rule based on facts and truths, not fears and suppositions.


The IL Supreme Court is also taking up the People v. Pepitone case in which an IL appellate court found the statewide park restrictions to be unconstitutional:

Briefs in the case are due in the next 2 months.

If there is an unfavorable opinion then this park restrictions case could also be heading to SCOTUS.


I’m confused: when entities such as Facebook ban registered citizens from using their site and actively hunt them down and delete their accounts, why is this important? The government says it’s ok to use but they don’t let us use it

This will be the second time SCOTUS has been asked this question. They refused to take cert in Doe v. Shurtleff. Wonder if they will refuse this one as well.


“Factor 2 lists the basis for the scheme to be deemed regulatory. The SCOTUS lists specifically WHAT NOT TO DO!”

That is incorrect. SCOTUS lists items that weren’t done that would make them more likely to consider it punitive or resembling the conditions of parole/probation. They did not say those things would make it so on any individual or even cumulative basis. That was an opinion written by one Justice no matter how many others agreed and can’t be taken as setting an agreed on barrier for legal battles, only consideration.

I am glad they listed those things for future battles, but I think you are putting too much weight on them setting some type of precedent. I will agree that they are important factors to be focused on thanks to their inclusion in the opinion.