SUCCESS! Your calls worked! We support SB 145 again because residency restrictions are removed!
Related posts
-
CA: Newsom signs SB 145 intended to end discrimination against LGBTQ people in sex crime convictions
SACRAMENTO — Discrimination against LGBTQ people in sex crime convictions will be outlawed under a new law signed... -
CA: In effort to change sex-crimes law, Newsom’s LGBTQ rights record faces a test
SACRAMENTO — A California bill intended to prevent discrimination against LGBTQ people in sex crime convictions has captured... -
CA Legislature Passes Senate Bill 145
On the last day possible, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 145. The bill now goes...
Sounds like the board slipped in a little retaliatory clause, “If you pass this bill we hate, they you will pay.” This has to stop somewhere. The abuse, the blatant discrimination, the constitutional violations, it just has to stop somewhere.
I don’t understand how the new changes (6b and 6c) are really any different from what has already been there with regard to residency restrictions. The only thing added is “or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290”, but the part about those that are required to register not living with 2000 feet of school or park is not new, but it was not enforceable.
How does adding the quoted words above change that being enforceable?
Also, I can’t even seem to find “paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290”. I see paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) which talks about tier 2 registrants, but c has no subparagraphs.
Is Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez (Appropriations Committee Chair) behind this horribly destructive amendment?
Is this Sen. Weiner’s doing? Why would he make these changes?
So this basically means that ALL registrants in California would be prohibited from living 2000 feet within schools and parks?
Wasn’t this already defeated before?
I’m surprised we didn’t catch this sooner. Wasn’t this provision already declared unconstitutional several years ago? At the very least these provisions are carte blanche for any community in the state wishing to rid themselves of registered citizens, forcing many to go homeless. Again.
Yeah what the hell man. This is just the same old crap that the courts and even the AG in my case say they will not enforce,
SEC. 6. Section 3003.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
3003.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is released on parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state prison for any offense for which registration is required pursuant to Section 290, or for a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290, that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in any single family single-family dwelling with any other person also person required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this section, “single family “single-family dwelling” shall not include a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 290, or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290, to reside within 2000 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.
Now the following I thought got shot down somewhere sometime but is still something to consider.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290. 290 or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290.
To be honest, some people are about to go postal I can tell you that. The limit to government is approaching fast I can tell you that. CA is trying its BS gun crap again and it ain’t going to go down well. Not to mention how someone like me is feeling about all this. Making people pretty unstable for sure.
We need to find out whomever had this destructive amendment placed into this bill and see about having him/her removed from office. This is unacceptable!!!
The amended bill passed by the Senate does NOT CHANGE anything dealing with residency restrictions. The amended language only uniformly added the reference to the new section, 290(c)(2), throughout the codes. The only reference to residency restrictions is within Section 3003.5 of the Penal Code, which only deals with persons on parole. The residency restrictions on parolees written into those sections, amended or not, have already been struck down by the California Supreme Court in 2015. Therefore, the section in 3003.5 is not enforceable anyway and any amending to it does not overrule the Court. While eliminating 3003.5(b) and (c) would make it look nicer, it isn’t required. It appears SB 145, as it stands currently, is still a good bill and would not place any new residency restrictions on anyone. It still allows the court to determine parole conditions for persons required to register and persons not required to register by the court for sexual offenses, i.e. guilty of offenses listed in 290(c)(1) and (2). Please tell me why SB 145 should now be opposed?
I will make ALL calls first thing in the morning!
Thank you Janice!!!
I’m confused. I read all 3 versions that is posted for this bill and each one has the 2000 ft residency requirement. Was this just missed when we supported this bill originally? Someone from ACSOL please explain. I will make my calls again after there is a better explanation as to what happened. Also, would this 2000ft rule be retro-active to those no longer on Parole/Probation?
I might be wrong, but I think the CA Supreme Court in 2015 said that counties and cities couldn’t make their local restrictions stricter than the state’s. If the state adopts the 2000 ft. rule, theoretically the CASC wouldn’t have a problem with it, though they’d be pretty hard pressed to explain how the state’s 2000 ft. restriction is somehow more constitutional and less crippling than a city’s or county’s.
After over 4 yrs of parole (and no violations), I was looking forward to finally being able to move to more affordable housing next year as I can barely make ends mete due to the residency restrictions imposed on me.
Please everyone, do what you can to stop the amendments added to this bill.
I made all the calls, four mail boxes were full so I couldn’t leave a message. I’m guessing that is a good thing. I got through to Scott Weiner’s office.
Made calls and left messages. Some voice boxes were full so I hope that’s from people leaving VMs over this.
I will do what is asked of me here. That said: How many times do we need to get curb-stomped by the professional liars to learn that this is not the way to make change? This is the exact same last-minute bait and switch strategy that they used with the Tiered Registry Scam. Make it sound palatable for us, right up to the last minute…….And then, PRESTO!
Can we Fax if voice mail don’t work?
🌟🌟🌟 You can also send them a message by clicking on “Contact the Assemblyman/Assembly member.” When the autobot asks for your address, use the Assemblymember’s own local office address (i.e., Suite 200, 55 East Main Street, Bogoville, CA 90000). This is a way around their limit to receive messages only from their own constituents. AND it’s perfectly justified because, when they serve on these Committees, they represent all Californians, not just their one District!
🌟🌟 Please be sure your message to him/her includes your name and address so they will know you are a real voter/constituent/Californian and will not disregard your message.
‘Just finished making all requested calls and was pleased to reach a real person at the end of each line. I am more than happy to be able to stand up, speak up and support the effort – whether able to show up in person or not.
🙄 How did the amendment’s author forget to include nurseries/daycare facilities, libraries, museums, arcades, malls, fast food restaurants and movie theaters. Can’t forget those! [Sarcasm intended!]
Fire that careless staffer! 😖
🙄 So I couldn’t live near a park….. but I could spend 12 hours a day there walking my dog, eating my lunch, and reading a book??
Hooray for pandering lawmakers and their brain-dead voters!!! 😖
Made calls to Ass PSC members and Sen. Weiner’s office to oppose. I’m a little confused though. Is the hearing on 7/9 before the Ass. PSC or the Appropriations Committee?
I too just made phone calls to all Public Safety Committee members and to Scott Wiener’s office.
Lol. They took out all the cis gendered pronouns. Interesting.
This is the paragraph the amendments refer to:
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006.
The amendments basically say that people convicted of felonies of these sections, while not being required to register, can be subjected to residency restrictions. So basically the people the bill was intended to help could also potentially harm them.
I don’t however see how this changes anything related to all other registrants and residency restrictions per Section 3003.5
Tell him, that with the Taylor ruling in place Janice, that even if this bill hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional it is highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. He’ll be in court so fast he won’t even know what hit him! This HOLOCAUST cannot be tolerated!