ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley, August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  June 22, July 27  [details]

California

Two California Cities Repeal Halloween Restrictions

The Cities of Lancaster and Temecula this week repealed restrictions which prohibited all registrants living in those cities from fully participating in Halloween celebrations. The repeals took place after letters were sent to a total of five cities warning that the restrictions were preempted by state law. The letters also warned cities that fail to repeal the Halloween restrictions could be sued in court..

“We congratulate Lancaster and Temecula for taking the necessary steps to repeal their unlawful ordinances,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “And we are preparing to challenge in court the remaining cities that still have Halloween ordinances.”

In both Lancaster and Temecula, registrants were required to turn off all outside lights and prohibited registrants from decorating their homes and answering the door to trick-or-treaters on Halloween. Lancaster was the first city to act when it took the first step toward repeal of its Halloween ordinance on September 11. Both cities took action during City Council meetings on September 25.

“Halloween restrictions for registrants is a solution without a problem,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein. “According to academic studies on the subject, no child has ever been harmed by a registrant while trick or treating on Halloween.”

 

Join the discussion

  1. D

    What were the other 3 cities that were sent letters?

    Amy suggestions for RC living in cities that said they would not enforce their residency restrictions, but never said anything about the Halloween restrictions?

  2. Will Allen

    If there is anything that shows the pure, through and through, stupidity of the “$EX offender” witch hunt, it is the Halloween “restrictions”. They are so stupid that they physically make me cringe. They are so stupid that they actually would make me feel bad for SOME of the people who talk about the “restrictions” as if they are something sensible, good, useful, or acceptable. But just to be clear – I don’t feel bad for any Registry Terrorist (RT).

    I always wonder if the reporters who are forced to report the stupidity are just killed and demoralized by it. I would have a very hard time reporting things that made me really look and sound stupid. It would surely suck away some of my soul.

    So I kind of hate to see the “restrictions” go because it is taking away part of the awesome proof of just how stupid, awful, immoral, anti-factual, and anti-American the RTs are. But people should never forget what a dangerous pile of human stupidity that they are.

  3. Will Allen

    Gosh, I really should’ve mentioned congratulations to ACSOL. You are completely awesome at kicking the asses of these criminal regimes and their scumbag supporters. They are awful anti-Americans that we unfortunately have to allow to live in America.

    You are doing great, moral work that you obviously don’t have to do. All good Americans should thank you every day.

  4. Time 4 Change

    La Verne, Ca is another city that has Halloween ordinances. During my annual update, the Detective said they will not be enforcing the Halloween Ordinance. I asked why it hasn’t been repealed and he just nodded his head like he didn’t know why.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Time4Change – The City of Laverne passed a Halloween ordinance on August 6, 2012, and repealed the same ordinance on October 20, 2014. If anyone has evidence that the City of Laverne is now trying to enforce the repealed ordinance please contact me immediately by email at JMBellucci@aol.com.

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    Still not a mention by lawmakers about Drunk Drivers killing kids or hurting each Halloween.

    • Will Allen

      Silly, we don’t care about hurting kids. You can run around on Halloween and hit them in the heads with hammers and you’re all good in the future. As long as you don’t touch their rear ends while you are doing it.

      You do gotta wonder why MADD or some such thing is not really pushing hard to get DUIers banned from the streets on Halloween. And from living near schools. Or driving to schools. Or driving to parks. Etc.

      • mike r

        Excellent observation, lets go even further with practical and most definitely rational basis, ban DUI drivers from driving on any and all holidays, not allowed to go to close to anywhere booze is sold or available in any way which means no bars, casinos, sporting events, concerts, etc. and lifetime ignition interlock devices or just take their driving privileges away for life (they have alternatives to driving, buses, carpools, bicycles, feet, and driving they say is not even a rigbt so that should be easy to take away) and make all this retroactive lifetime restrictions including a public registry in which individuals will face lengthy prison time for any violations.

  6. Eric

    To my knowledge, and it was corroborated by an attorney, there has NEVER been a child sexually assaulted by an RSO while Trick-or-treating on Halloween.

  7. iosh

    We have Halloween restrictions in Missouri. They sound similar to what you have there. It is a state law and not a city restriction. Is there anyway to fight these types of laws?

  8. AnotherAnon

    It makes an interesting Google because there is still the fearmongering but some sites link to the real data and studies. The real risk is getting it by a car.

  9. Dray

    Rialto still has there ordinance Enforced , I had to sign for it the last time I registered. I told them that it was illegal if you were off probation or parole but they said it’s for everybody if you’re on Megan‘s law , I hope Janice send them a letter as well .

  10. Tim Moore

    Thanks Janice and ACSOL for your hard work on behalf of registrants and their families.

  11. kat

    “Restrictions pre-empted by state law”.
    Can anyone explain in layman’s terms what that means exactly and if that’s “all” states or just certain ones.
    Would like to fight the Halloween Restrictions in TN.

  12. AnotherAnon

    “Restrictions pre-empted by state law” means that state law take precedence over county or city ordinance, like federal law pre-empts state laws if they conflict. This should mean that cities cannot pass Halloween laws in conflict with the existing state law. State law in Calif. pre-empted the various residency restrictions passed by local authorities, and were therefore unconstitutional since the body of regulatory state law takes precedence. If you are thinking of challenging this, it would of course be best to consult a real lawyer.

  13. kerry

    Another win for ACSOL, God bless the great work you are doing. Keep removing the bricks from the wall, eventually it will collapse. Spotlight on the kangaroo sex courts this week, judge Kavanaugh got a taste of the sex offender hysteria. Bet it feels different across the bench judge?

  14. Gwen

    Restriction regarding Halloween from the City of Rialto, CA –
    HALLOWEEN RESTRICTION:
    https://library.municode.com/CA/rialto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPESAMO_DIVVOFAGPUPE_CH9.52RESEOFRE
    “Sex offender” means any person convicted of an offense against a child for whom registration is required by Section 290 of the California Penal Code, regardless of whether that person is on parole or probation.
    (Ord. No. 1535, § 2, 10-8-13)
    9.52.030 – Halloween, restrictions on conduct.
    Any sex offender shall be required to do the following between twelve a.m. and eleven fifty-nine p.m. on October 31st of each year:
    A. Leave all exterior residential, decorative, and ornamental lights at the residence of such sex offender off during the evening hours starting at 5:00 p.m. until midnight;
    B.Refrain from decorating the front yard and exterior of such residence with typical Halloween decorations;
    C.Refrain from opening the door of such residence to children requesting treats, in the typical manner of trick or treating, or otherwise contacting such children on the premises of such residence.
    (Ord. No. 1535, § 2, 10-8-13)
    9.52.040 – Penalty.
    Any person violating the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.