ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


Under legal threat, Victorville to repeal sex offender residency rules

[Victorville Daily Press]

With threat of a lawsuit hanging over its head, the city will repeal local residency restrictions for registered sex offenders and defer to existing state regulations.

The move is not unexpected. Cities across California have been forced to bow to pressure from sex offender law reformists in recent years, while courts have simultaneously limited local regulatory authority.

In December 2014, the City Council reluctantly agreed to align its local ordinance restricting the movements of registered sex offenders with the statewide regulations already in effect.

That decision came after the California chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws sued the city in August of that year, contending that local ordinances were overkill.

Read More


Join the discussion

  1. commenter1

    Are statewide restrictions preventing RSOs from living 2000 feet from a school or park actually enforced anywhere in the state of California?

  2. AlexO

    The language in this article is poor. Saying “forced to bow to pressure” instead of “complying with the law” makes it sound like the cities are the victims here.

    • Lovecraft

      Hah! If it was only pressure from rc’s they wouldn’t bat an eye. They have to do damage control/grandstand and what better way to do so then by becoming a victim.

  3. Eric Knight

    Video of city council…

    The video will open right at the start of the segment for residency restrictions repeal.

    Note the usual “I don’t wanna do it, but we can’t legally defend it!” comment, along with the accompanying dittos.

  4. AJ

    I’m glad to see another city coming into compliance. It would be nice if there were an article showing what has happened in cities after repealing these restrictions. My guess: nothing bad. I’d hope a reduction in homelessness, but that is something much easier to create than to remedy.

  5. New Person


    THANK YOU!!!

    This basically answered my query long ago when I inquired about when the VV police department gave me a letter stating that re:Taylor decision only pertained to those on parole, not any other registrants. Now this informs us that in VV, there are no residency restrictions for all registrants.

    I presume that’s what this repealing means b/c the reporting doesn’t actually go into detail:
    With threat of a lawsuit hanging over its head, the city will repeal local residency restrictions for registered sex offenders and defer to existing state regulations.

    What does it mean “defer to existing state regulations”? I thought re:Taylor removed all residency restriction.

    • AlexO

      I believe the state regulations are that residency restrictions have to be done on a case by case bases. So they can restrict someone but it would be for that person only and with reason.

    • Thoughtasweak

      Taylor decision said that they can only to those on parole and not as a blanket rule, it can only be applied on case by case, (so think if those who were in civil commitment). We all know these restrictions don’t do anyone anything but cause more housing issues.

  6. Q

    I don’t recall ever hearing of residency or proximity restrictions preventing a crime. I’ve never seen any proof that these restrictions keep anyone safe either. Just like I’ve never heard of the sex offender registry preventing a crime and I’ve never seen any proof that it keeps anyone safe. I’ve looked and always come up with a big fat zero. When are people going to wake up to the reality none of this does anything good for anyone?

    • Registry Rage

      ^They just want to look good while doing nothing and take credit for the sun coming up.

      “You see! Our children are safer now because there hasn’t been any incidences since these measures were implemented.”

      They actually believe the registry and it’s restrictions are a deterrent !! Which is patently FALSE.

      • New Person

        Makes one wonder why there weren’t registries created for all other crimes? Why single out one group?

        • Harry

          $ex $ells

        • AlexO

          It evolved to this. The registry was originally started in California in 1940’s. At the time their primary targets were gay men as sodomy was illegal and general feeling on gays is obvious. Often times these men were law-abiding other than them being gay and living their lives. Being gay was legitimately perceived as a mental illness so it was a super low hanging fruit to go after that would appease the masses.

          From there it continued to expend through a series of isolated cases that got a lot of attention through fear mongering and public outcry (and pretty much in every case the registry would not have prevented the crime). The last such major incident resulted in Megan’s Law and public internet registry. Prior to Megan’s law the list was kept private with mainly only law enforcement having access. Private citizens could access it but only when they filed for the information and it was approved by court ). Then, that citizen could only access the file of the person he filed for and no one else. And even this process was on a time limit and you were watched by an officer to make sure you didn’t deviate to anyone else (our rehab director told me stories of needing to go through this process on rehab clients and having a cop literally stand over his shoulder while he looked through the database).

          A fair amount of major laws were created in a moment of passion and without merit. The other big one some might be familiar with is the Patriot Act following 9/11. Almost no one that voted for the bill actually read it, let alone understood it. And it’s had some very major ramifications since.

  7. Google .. is it poetry

    They are only doing the right thing.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *