ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


FL: Oconomowoc tweaks sex offender residency restrictions in wake of federal court decision

[Florida Journal Sentinel]


CITY OF OCONOMOWOC – The common council on Tuesday, Dec. 5, voted to repeal and replace the city’s 2011 ordinance outlining residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, joining a handful of other area communities to do so in the wake of lawsuits and a federal court decision earlier this year.

Under the new rules, registered sex offenders who did not live in the city at the time of their offense could petition the common council to move into Oconomowoc. Such offenders are currently barred from attempting to move to the city under the current ordinance’s “original domicile restriction.”

But those offenders, if allowed to move in, would have to find housing in the 9 percent of the city that does not fall within 1,000 feet of a “child safety zone,” areas near local schools, parks or houses of worship.

About 664 housing units fall within that 9 percent, said Oconomowoc Police Chief Ron Buerger.

Read more


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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Child safety zone” is such an oxymoron. That’s like saying “snowflake buffer..”

Legitimate question: Why should anyone on the registry have to “petition” for their preexisting privacy, safety and security, that was circumvented by Megan’s law in the first place, be restored?!?!

To petition off of something means you’re under custody by somebody. You petition out of jail. Why are you petitioning off of the registry? That’s a judge re-litigating your original crime to get removed off of the punishment born out of said crime. Remember, you’re under custody of the state. So you belong to the state still.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

The registry was born out of a crime, but is not punishment. Therefore, the state cannot own you any longer or force you to do any service born out of your crime b/c it’s not punishment. Services such as in-person annuals or in-person updates, having restrictions to abide by such as informing the state when you’ll be out of state, out of the country, and re-registering in a new state after a certain time period. Also, you’re banned from many occupations as well as housing services. All of this b/c you still belong to the state, under their custody.

No other freed person is subjected to this compelled services/obligations that is not punishment.

So why is there a need for a second judgement? Are registrants still under custody? If not, then this is involuntary servitude. If so, then this is punishment. And if this is punishment, then this is double jeopardy.

Oconomowoc is in Wisconsin, (just seems like Florida in it’s oppression)
I’m sure the appeals boards are filled with experts.

Yes, Oconomowoc is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The article claims it is from the Florida Journal Sentinel…it’s the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

How has all of this not reached SCOTUS yet? Much of their 2003 ruling was based on the fact that non of this was a big deal. It has moved well beyond that. This law alone completed barred someone from moving into a town. Now they have to petition the town to be allowed in, and then they’re still restricted to a 1000-foot leash. This is infuriating!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x