CA: Simi Valley’s Halloween law – not needed, not enforced, not fair (Editorial)

Simi Valley is again facing a lawsuit over its ordinance regulating sex offenders on Halloween, and we can cite a multitude of reasons why the city should not waste a single dime of taxpayer money defending it in court. It’s time for Simi Valley to walk away from this questionable ordinance and instead devote those dollars and energy to real problems in the city. Full Editorial

Related

https://www.simivalleyacorn.com/articles/legal-wrangle/

CA: Federal lawsuit challenges Simi Valley Halloween sex offender law for second time

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.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They were doing tacit enforcement then actual enforcement. Must be election time again for someone there!

I’m glad to see the paper’s editors are against this stupid ordinance…and have been ever since it came into being. Some common sense once again spoken on our behalf. Chip, chip, chip is what I hear on the RC laws.

Hey Mr. Mayor: standing on the claim that you’ve never enforced the law doesn’t mean you won’t ever decide to come crashing down on a RC who believes it mean you never will. And we know that’s what it’s all about…suggest it’s a silly law, get a RC to cross the line, then nail him/her. Otherwise, we keep the law on the books? Why keep spending time and money to visit every RC every Halloween?

Operation “Boo” was always a solution in search of a problem – just like Megan’s flaw. This is just a cheap and easy PR campaign the local authorities exploit to look good while doing essentially nothing..

“It’s crucial and critical to check where the sex offenders live in your area before heading out.”

^Riigghhttt……

I would never even dream of thinking of telling Janice or anyone who has a law degree what to do. They know volumes more than I ever will, and I trust them with my life!

That said, I am (always have been, and always will be) weary of any settlement agreement where a government (city, county, state, etc.) simply gets away with saying they won’t enforce the law anymore. “We promise. Cross our hearts.”

In my humble opinion, a promise not to enforce can no longer be an acceptable term of any agreement. It’s like putting a vehicle in neutral. And, as we are seeing here, it’s way too easy for them to throw it back into drive.

I do understand that it may be better not to go to trial because we could always lose. So, maybe a promise not to enforce is better than trying and losing this case. However, these fascists cannot be trusted. I hope Simi Valley is required to pay dearly for this stupid move. More than anything, I hope these laws (especially the forced speech part) are found unconstitutional on their face! And I hope that it’s a decision that can spread through the nation.

ENOUGH!