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


VA: Action Item for Virginia 2018 Companion Bills, HB10 and SB112 to Expand the Victims Under a Hate Crime


A set of Companion Bills HB10/SB112 have been filed for the upcoming 2018 Virginia General Assembly session to expand the victims under a Hate Crime to also include disability, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation to the categories of victims.

The definition of a Hate Crime: Hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.

In Virginia it’s any criminal act committed against a person or his property with the specific intent of instilling fear or intimidation in the individual against whom the act is perpetrated because of race, religion or ethnic origin.

Registered Sex Offenders (RSO), their spouses, their parents, their significant others, their children, their room-mates and their property have become targets of vigilantes across the U.S. because their addresses are public information The property of RSO’s and their loved ones have been robbed, vandalized and set on fire. RSO’s and their loved ones have been harassed, taunted, assaulted and even murdered simply because a stranger found their name and address posted on the public Sex Offender Registry.

Based on the definition of a Hate Crime, Registered Sex Offenders are a “certain social group” and any violence against them should be punished as such.

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

Mary Devoy is exactly correct. However, I don’t know why they would limit hate crimes to just be people listed on Virginia’s SEX Offender Registry. I think it should be a hate crime to target anyone who is listed on any government’s SOR. And it should also include any family members, friends, employees, or anyone else, that is targeted because of an SOR.

The SORs are obviously a government sponsored hit list. I think government should give anyone that they list a set of lethal weapons, including guns.

The only reason they would not put us on this “good” list is that they believe we deserve violence against us. Let us write to them and require them to add registrants to the list and demand a reason if they believe otherwise. This way we can further document their intention to create a punitive registry or maybe even be successful in protecting our fellow registrants. I am writing to the patrons today, even though I am not a Virginia resident.

@Tim Moore

Good idea. Asking why they are stopping short of a reasonable expectation is good. If VA truly wants to lead by example for the nation, they should do so with an expanded law of all RC registries.

I was a little more politique in my wording, but the idea is to hold them to the idea that vigilantism is a crime and allows no exceptions. I emailed the patrons, but wonder if I should write an old style letter just to ensure it is read.

I have been pulled over twice now because the vehicles now carry NCIC “hits” attached to the registration records. CHP has to pull us over when they get a hit on a vehicle from the automatic license plate scanners. They don’t know what it’s for until they get a human to review the record. At the DMV I run into the same issue. I can’t do anything because NCIC hits have to be cleared by CHP. This is a government hit list. Literally.

So if I understand things correctly, the reasonable suspicion under which CHP is stopping you is that you’re on a non-punitive regulatory registry, and are exercising freedom of travel. That doesn’t sound very defensible in court. Something seems amiss. There may be more to your record in NCIC of which you may be unaware. A FOIA request about your record and the stop(s) might help shed some light.

Have an other CA RCs experienced this ever?

This is what i’ve learned to far:

About 3-4 months ago, the US Department of Justice started mandating that vehicles associated with sex offenders need to have their vehicle registrations ammended with an NCIC flag relating to the fact that a sex offender is associated with that vehicle.

According to the CHP office in Susanville, CA a woman there told me that it’s to know when a vehicle is driving by a school. I promptly corrected her and reminded her that driving by a school is NOT a crime.

My registering officer “Cody” at Lassen County Sheriff Department was the one who advised me of the memo that went out to registering officers when I registered into Lassen County.

I spoke with California DOJ, Megans’ Law division and was advised this policy went into effect a few months ago by US Department of Justice.

Basically now when cops run plates of vehicles and a vehicle comes back with a NCIC “hit”, they are forced to pull us over and they don’t know immediately what it is for.

So far, two times when doing routine paperwork at the DMV in Susanville, the DMV was forced to “discover” the 210 NCIC hit on the registration record for my vehicle. It meant that they could not process my paperwork or move forward until they got it cleared by CHP. EACH AND EVERY TIME I GO INTO THE DMV, THIS IS NOW WHAT I AM FACED WITH.

I really want California RSOL to look into this and make a public statement about their findings and if any action will be taken to discover more or to litigate this issue. This is clearly no longer just regulatory but punitive.

When I can’t safely travel without risk of random pullovers for investigation, it is clearly crossing the line. Every single time I pass a CHP officer or he passes me, they are required to pull me over because of the NCIC hit on the vehicle. Those License Plate Readers in California are automatic.

I believe the cops call this a “bingo” stop.

“At the DMV I run into the same issue.”

I renewed my license recently and already had my pic taken, was waiting in chairs for them to process everything. Nonchalantly, I just looking around trying to pass time, but suddenly, the women behind the processing station (both at the same time) gave me the most cold, death glare along with a disappointing scowl that I will never forget. I knew instantly in my mind what prompted that interaction.

I could actually feel their resentment and animosity – it was that visceral and intense…

This is exactly how society looks down on us with disgust when they see our picture and registration info Online! Unfortunately, I got to experience it in real-time that day.

I was forced to tell the lady at the DMV: “Go ahead, call the CHP for the 210 NCIC hit. They are just going to say he’s a registered sex offender and will give you the authorization to clear it.”

I was forced to say it in front of everyone waiting in line. I promptly started educating people around me that we are okay with this kind of tracking and monitoring of people but it wont just be sex offenders soon. It will be anyone with a record. How many of you have a criminal record? I am betting at least half of you do. And then continued getting my paperwork and walking out the door.

This is very interesting. Could the bordering states/WDC see similar legal attempts made to pass a comparable law? If a Marylander was in VA visiting and a Virginian committed a crime against the Marylander because they knew they were a Maryland RC, could the Virginian be tried under this law even if the VA registry was not used, but perhaps the Maryland registry was used? You’d think it would be possible because of the definition, but the spine of the prosecutor’s office would be key here in their respective political ambition and willingness to do the right thing and press for applicability. Would they say the MD registry fine print says what it can and cannot be used for; thus, is the guiding light?

I agree with the notion the definition of lists needs to be expanded as mentioned.

Well this is a nice step, but since it would only apply after the fact, it seems it will fail to protect anyone.

Would someone in the KKK be dissuaded from killing a sex offender because it would be hate crime? Hate crimes are what the KKK do.

It seems to me that if the rso registry was not public, it would be a more effective solution.

But, at least people are starting to think about what is and what is not justified in terms of living as a rso

It is interrelated. First it is recognized we are targets, then the discussion is open for why the state has to make us targets in the beginning and so have to protect us because of it.


Is anyone really dissuaded from anything if they are adamant about doing it consequences be damned regardless of the law? No, probably not. The best they hope to do is do it and get away with it regardless. That is the basic argument people argue when it comes to laws and their effectiveness.

A law to detail why a class of people needs protecting beyond the basic fact of law saying any sort of harassment of another human regardless of their class is on the books already is interesting discussion; however, if it works as they say and draws the attention to those who are on the receiving end of it…you get the point.

If anyone reads the media, follows cases, talks with people, etc, those who are RCs will be known, just not in the same way, shape or form as is today even if there was not a registry. People are smarter today than before and more information savvy. Someone somewhere would say something and it would spread rather quickly through social media groups, kitchen table round ups, et al. The registry enables the info to spread faster for everyone to see regardless of their need and/or want to know for their reasons.

A non-public registry for those on paper still is the best solution, though no registry period is the best solution because people will always be listed in a database somewhere until off paper.

I am confused about your point.! That sounds like what I said, just with a greater number of words. Did I miss your point?

I don’t mind if people know if they know the whole story or at least the whole summary in Cliff Notes and act reasonably, but they read one bad line in a 500 page novel and think that tells them all they need to know, and then they feel the need to act on the slim information not bothering to even look at the immediate following pages that state that the response was already taken care of.

Most every State already has “hate crime” admonitions written on their registry websites:

“The information on this web site is made available solely to protect the public. Anyone who uses this information to commit a crime or to harass an offender or his or her family is subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability”
-and I know California has it in their sex offense statute . I believe it is 5 yrs enhanced sentence for a felony committed against a registrant.

Does is do any good? Not much because it is not publicized. Every time a newscaster advises the public to check the registry, or even mentions the public registry, the aforementioned admonishment should be mandatory. And THAT is what we should be pushing for ( short of getting rid of them altogether- which will probably happen in the near future)

These hate crime laws really don’t do much to prevent violence anyways.
. They just focus attention on the individual perpetrators by giving them lengthier sentences and distract attention away from the true systemic source of violence – the State.

The fact that Virginia only wants to add gender/ sexual orientation to its protected class reveals to me that this is just a political agenda. Why not homelessness? The homeless are statistically the most abused and assaulted group in the country. Pfft.

This is creating a new crime.
If you want to stop a new crime just remove the Magan’s Law.
Easy and Simple

I know writing these politicians may not do much to stop vigilantism, but the way I view it, the important thing is for politicians to hear the voices of registrants.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x