CT: Naugatuck puts its property off-limits to sex offenders

R H
[rep-am.com]

 

NAUGATUCK – Registered sex offenders will no longer be allowed on most borough-owned property. The Board of Mayor and Burgesses unanimously passed an ordinance Tuesday that bans any person convicted of a sexual offense from frequenting borough-owned parks, schools, playgrounds,…

Read more

 

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.  
 

23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Does that mean they can’t even walk on the sidewalk or the street which is borough-owned property?

0
Reply

Was this law proposed & passed to address a problem? Or was it done “just because?”

0
Reply
View Replies (3)

Can you say, “First Amendment violation”? Apparently they don’t understand that banning all RCs from all public fora violates Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. This will never survive strict scrutiny, especially in the shadow of Packingham, which reiterated the State’s burden.

0
Reply

…but if you sell drugs to kids, rob stores, car jack people no problem, you’re still welcome.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

This would be an easy win for Janice. Most of this story is behind a paywall. Here is a link with a little more of the story. https://patch.com/connecticut/naugatuck/naugatuck-bans-registered-sex-offenders-town-property

0
Reply
View Replies (2)

Banishment?

Sounds like a Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, and First Amendment violation.

It’s also ex-post-facto if it affects people who committed the crimes before the law takes place.

I can’t see the article to really understand what the details are.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

Here’s the website for the burough:

http://www.naugatuck-ct.gov/content/77/79/2682.aspx

If you go to last night’s agenda, you can read the full language of the newly approved ordinance.

0
Reply
View Replies (2)

Did I miss the part that said that this person that scared this other person was a confirmed RC and this is another case of inflicting unjust laws on all of us based on one of us?

Or is this normal John Walsh style of justice and punish an unrelated class of citizens for a parents neglect of their child?

0
Reply

I sent email to the mayor referencing the article. His response? ” you are misinformed”.

0
Reply
View Replies (3)

Gee-
Maybe registrants should refuse to pay taxes on town areas that they are denied access to!
If you can’t eat the steak, why should you have to pay for it!

0
Reply

There are some excellent comments following the article.

https://patch.com/connecticut/naugatuck/naugatuck-bans-registered-sex-offenders-town-property

0
Reply