ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

General Comments September 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of September 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.

Join the discussion

  1. norman

    Let us say a prayer for our brothers and sisters in Florida who will be denied emergency assistance (because of their registration status) in one of the shelters because of Hurricane Dorian…Hopefully they will be able to ride this cat 5 Hurricane out..I am sure that dui daddy and his snowflake daughter will be more than ok….

    • Anonymous

      “DUI daddy” LOL. Probably plead to a “Lesser charge”.
      “Favorable” judge preserves Book legacy. Good luck to everyone else in Florida.

  2. Tim in WI

    Three years and a mandamus later the crux of the general issue is on full display. The people in the State of Michigan are blatantly ignoring judicial impetus but why? The unpopularity of acting constitutionally?

    What farmer or rancher opts to advertise the worst of his crop or flock on a world wide scale?
    Certainly not not the one who stays in business for long. That is plain logic. Yet that was the choice made in 1994 by American politicians AND approved of by Supreme Court Majority.

    The unfettered and unconstitutional use of the database machine where humans are enslaved by law to maintain them even as they work anti- liberty against the whole of the people.

  3. Jun

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/politics/terrorism-watchlist-constitution.html#click=https://t.co/rVnqZZ8cT7

    FBI secret Muslim registry database was just found unconstitutional! Judge said it impeded Constitutional Rights of Americans. Keeping them from traveling, etc. 1.2 million people were on the list being turned back or told they couldn’t get on a plane, etc. Sound familiar?? Those put on list included people who were acquitted of terror-related offenses or had charges dropped! Judge found this registry banned Americans(!) from international traveling, which is unconstitutional! THIS is step to right direction regarding IML?

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      It’s certainly good precedent. I’d like to read the opinion. And I would like to know A.J.’s opinion on the opinion. We’ll see if we “sex offenders” must remain on our own “terrorism no-fly list.”

    • Tim in WI

      Jun,
      Yes certain uses of the gov database are ignorant, intolerable and unconstitutional!
      The two parties are only interested in political security.

    • Chris f

      I just read the opinion.

      It’s got great stuff with lots of case law to back it up.

      Most of us are familiar with a similar Scotus sex offender challenge from 2003 called Connecticut DPS v Doe. We lost that because potential dangerousness was not part of the scheme and it was merely an easy to access list of those convicted of certain crimes with data that was publicly available.

      Now that being on the list denies us travel and government housing as well as the thousands of other restrictions and jobs, they can no longer claim the list doesnt infer dangerousness. Also, the compelling governement interest was based on a false 80% recidivism rate instead of the less than 1% it actually is. It needs to be properly challenged again.

  4. David

    But, as many know, the problem is that the US is not banning registrants from traveling or entering other countries – it is the countries themselves that refused us entry.
    The lawmakers were very crafty in writing IML this way. It’s still an uphill battle to argue that IML is unconstitutional.

    • TS

      @David

      Interesting. With that, then is the USG enabling the either countries to refuse entry by choice through notifying them of public information and potential inferred danger without assessment that otherwise wouldn’t have necessarily been known prior to arrival?

  5. Chris f

    A good read to underatand where Gorsuch stands:

    https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-gorsuch-why-originalism-is-the-best-approach-to-the-constitution/

    I think he will be on our side if we can ever get good cases in front of him.

    • CR

      Thanks for the article link @Chris f. That was a good read. Apparently it is an excerpt from Gorsuch’s new book, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”. I’m going to buy that book and read it.

      I liked this bit from the article:

      “Like United States v. Carloss, where I ruled that the police violated a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering the curtilage of his home without a warrant despite four conspicuously posted no trespassing signs.”

      It was a dissent, actually, that Goresuch wrote in that 10th circuit case.

      It must be time for some conspicuous posting! Maybe even some variation from the too often ignored “No Trespassing” or “Keep Out” signs. Goresuch says in his dissent, “Or how about this?”

      THE IMPLIED LICENSE DISCUSSED
      BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
      IN BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622 (1951)
      AND FLORIDA v. JARDINES, 133 S. CT. 1409 (2013)
      IS HEREBY REVOKED

      • AJ

        @CR:
        I posted something about this a month or two ago. There are some law professors who’ve leveraged the whole idea into “LAWn signs”:

        https://fourthamendmentsecurity.com/lawn-signs/ (take note of the embedded URL in the word “here”).

        • @ AJ and others

          After looking at your 4th amendment link I have a question: Does being a RC (or any prior conviction) provide reasonable suspicion to detain for the police? (Certainly doesn’t provide probable cause, right?) I’m unclear on that, for example, if I were driving my own car in a different state. Does a prior conviction alone allow police to detain me/my family and begin investigating? I have a piece of paper saying my constitutional rights were restored to me (excepting carrying a hand gun). I’ve assumed that was actually true but I wonder.

        • AJ

          @[unknown]:
          “Does being a RC (or any prior conviction) provide reasonable suspicion to detain for the police?”
          —–
          Standing on its own, almost assuredly not. Reasonable suspicion is something more than a hunch, but less than concrete proof. It’s based on a set of specific and articulable facts (behaviors, sights, sounds, prior convictions) based on a TBL’s training, experience, and intuition…but if the TBL can walk someone through the thought process, it’s probably legal.

          Note that this does NOT apply to CBP. CBP can and does use convictions as reasonable suspicion. However, I’m sure if push came to shove they’d whip up some other “facts” so it’s not just prior conviction when asked by a court.
          =====

          “(Certainly doesn’t provide probable cause, right?)”
          —–
          Absolutely not. Probable Cause is the legal standard for warrants and arrests, as well as Grand Jury indictments. HAVING a previous conviction is not a crime, so no judge will issue a warrant based solely on that; no arrest will be valid based solely on that; and no prosecutor will present it to a Grand Jury based solely on that.
          =====

          “…for example, if I were driving my own car in a different state. Does a prior conviction alone allow police to detain me/my family and begin investigating?”
          —–
          Conviction *alone*? No. However it’s absolutely a solid “foot in the door” for the TBL to create reasonable suspicion. Suppose s/he sees someone “young looking” in the car with you. That, coupled with your conviction, I believe could easily constitute reasonable suspicion.

          Even if it were a basis, it would probably only be one to investigate *you*. Investigating those with whom you associate based on your history wouldn’t fly.
          =====

          “I have a piece of paper saying my constitutional rights were restored to me (excepting carrying a hand gun). I’ve assumed that was actually true but I wonder.”
          —–
          Don’t conflate restoration of rights with removal of heightened suspicion. IMO, a criminal record will *always* mean more scrutiny from TBLs. Always. Whether pardoned, expunged, old, or new, it’s always a reason they’ll use to poke a little more with you than with John Q. Public.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks for this detailed response! Really helpful perspective.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks for this detailed response! Really helpful perspective. I’ve told you before I’d buy you a beer… anytime and anyplace :).

          Let me add another hypothetical. What if I try to pull the “I don’t answer questions” stunt that 1st amendment instigators like to practice when they get pulled over or are filming federal courthouses (not sure whether you’ve ever seen the videos of those guys?). Point being, what’s my response to that LEO who pulls my family car over out of state because the cameras on his cruiser automatically ran my plate (hit!) and he sees kids in the car (my kids!).

          Can I (kindly) tell him to get lost (we don’t answer questions) unless I have a broken taillight or was speeding? What if I was going 2 mph over or rear ended someone?

          I know you cannot give legal advice here, nobody can! But this very practical situation is one I’m terrified of because it’s (1) very possible, and (2) an absolute unknown, resulting in me not traveling as freely as I otherwise would. Thank you so much for your hypothetical answers

        • AJ

          @E:
          “What if I try to pull the “I don’t answer questions” stunt that 1st amendment instigators like to practice when they get pulled over or are filming federal courthouses[?]”
          —–
          You can certainly do that, since your First Amendment rights have been fully restored. Just keep in mind that you’ll get a similar, if not stronger, response from TBLs than do those (I assume) people who are conviction free.
          =====

          “what’s my response to that LEO who pulls my family car over out of state because the cameras on his cruiser automatically ran my plate (hit!) and he sees kids in the car (my kids!).

          “Can I (kindly) tell him to get lost (we don’t answer questions) unless I have a broken taillight or was speeding? What if I was going 2 mph over or rear ended someone?”
          —–
          I’ll repeat what a number of actual attorneys say on YT: “Never talk to police without an attorney present.*” Talking with TBLs is always a risky maneuver, as they can say you were belligerent, or uncooperative, or your voice cracked, or whatever they feel like inventing. The less said, the safer it is for ANY citizen–RCs all the more so. Also never, ever, ever admit to going even 1 MPH over the speed limit, as speeding is speeding, and the TBL could then say you admitted to breaking the law, and s/he has more accurate info (radar/lidar) than your speedometer or your testimony.**

          Being kind and saying as little as possible to end the traffic stop would be what I would do. I suppose one way to try to corner the TBL a little bit would be to decline to answer questions, and then turn to your children and tell them not to answer questions either. You could then tell the TBL that as their parent, the TBL does not have your consent to question your minor children. The TBL would then either have to believe they’re your kids and not question them (which would greatly undermine any further “reasonable” suspicion), or s/he could doubt you and try to question them without your consent. Though this would in time be a problem for the TBL, it would probably take time and legal assistance to get the TBL properly spanked. But as long as your kids listen to you, the TBL is stymied.

          Remember the two questions a TBL must answer honestly: “Am I free to go?” and “Am I being detained?” If the answer to the first question is “no”, ask the second. If the answer to the second question is “no”, ask the first. Keep going until the answer to the first is “yes.” “Advanced students” may even opt to engage a bit if told they’re being detained: “What articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause do you have that a law or statute has been violated? What law or statute?” But expect push back on that sort of stance.

          Also keep in mind SCOTUS’ landmark Opinion in Rodriguez v. US (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-9972/ and/or https://www.twifordlaw.com/criminal-defense/2017/05/15/police-dog-drug-sniffs-traffic-stops-new-time-limits/). Side note: anyone who thinks Kennedy was a moderate when it came to policing powers should take note he (and Thomas and Alito) dissented.

          *Some states require positive identification when asked by a TBL. Since s/he already will have your license–with your picture–they have already ID’d you, so there’s still no reason to interact with them.

          **I ALWAYS challenge in court any and all tickets. Since 95% of tickets go unchallenged, TBLs are pretty bad at showing up (could be a day off, could be in court elsewhere, or could be–as happened with someone I know–the TBL is killed in an accident). In fact 50% of the time the TBL will not appear, and the ticket is dismissed, so just for showing up you have a 50-50 shot at getting the ticket dropped. I also request a continuance as the initial court date appears. Most courts will grant one without asking for justification, but getting a second one is tough. I was once facing a pre-trial hearing with the DA and the judge over my second request (the DA wouldn’t release patrol-car records I was by statute entitled to receive–she told me they weren’t pertinent to my case! I was ready to request dismissal for misconduct and violation of my statutory rights), but the TBL didn’t show so the DA found me in the gallery and moved for dismissal. Anyway, the benefit of a continuance to you is the case becomes fuzzier in the TBL’s mind–and during that time they may change jobs, retire, die, etc.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks so much… extremely helpful to think through, and understanding the jeopardy I’m in just for existing, especially in a different state driving a car that is registered.

        • Will Allen

          @AJ, E, etc.:

          AJ, lots of great advice there.

          I drive in other states a lot. Most often it is in rental cars so I don’t worry about law enforcement criminals (LECs) much. But I’m just waiting for the criminal regimes to figure out that “loophole” in their stupidity and harassment and try to create “laws” that require rental companies to report all RP rentals immediately. They could then put the license plates in their automatic readers or whatever. If that were the case, I’d probably just have someone else rent the car, but whatever. The criminal regimes would enjoy being able to harass more people more often.

          I have been Registered for over 2 decades and I’ve driven my own vehicles a LOT in other states. I don’t think I’ve gotten any extra harassment. I’ve had children with me plenty of times as well. But I have been pulled over maybe 10ish times for speeding or whatever. I’ve never had ANY issue at all and never had anyone even ask me about Registering.

          But, I don’t speak to LECs AT ALL. They might say something like, “So where are you heading?” and I’ll either have told them politely that I don’t talk to LECs or I will just say “down the road” or something equally useless. It is very easy to make even the dumbest of LECs understand that you are not going to be speaking to them. BTW, doing that is not a “stunt” as E called it. There is no reason to talk to LECs. They are a danger.

          The biggest problem that I’ve had actually is traveling with other people. I’ve made it clear to other people that they cannot ride with me unless they agree that they will NEVER, under any circumstances, talk to LECs about the trip. And I have had LECs try to talk to other adults in my vehicle. But nobody is ever dumb enough to speak to them.

          I wouldn’t worry about just driving around interstate. Just assume though that the LECs know that you are there. Always. So you just have to worry about their nonsense, Jim Crow, illegal Registration “laws”.

        • TS

          I am going add to what @AJ said and reiterate you are allowed to record the TBL while doing their job even during a traffic stop. Courts have said so. I have seen it recommended in several places to use an app (or other camera if you have one installed) if you can to surreptitiously record the stop thus allowing you to record you are asking questions #1 and #2 above, etc. If they want to throw around you were being difficult, etc, do what the video media has allowed us to do, let’s go to the film for a replay (even if you don’t actually get a video recording of the stop showing faces, but audio only). I’m sure then the DA, etc will not want any part of the court case once you have that to show.

          Also, don’t forget to get a business card from them showing their department, office, name, badge #, and other contact info for later that can read since penmanship is lacking these days.

          You can also ask for radar cert records on the spot too if you like. I have had them presented upon request during a stop.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          “I have seen it recommended in several places to use an app (or other camera if you have one installed) if you can to surreptitiously record the stop thus allowing you to record you are asking questions #1 and #2 above, etc.”
          —–
          Yes, and you want to have an app or camera that automatically and (nearly) instantaneously uploads to the cloud. TBLs have been known to re-aim, cover, turn off, etc., cameras and recording devices the notice. As with any human being, TBLs act differently when they know they are being recorded.
          =====

          “Also, don’t forget to get a business card from them showing their department, office, name, badge #, and other contact info for later that can read since penmanship is lacking these days.

          “You can also ask for radar cert records on the spot too if you like. I have had them presented upon request during a stop.”
          —–
          Those these can be useful, they also tend to show your hand. You want to blend in with every other person the TBL pulls over that day. Asking for these will almost certainly result in the TBL making notes on the back of his/her copy of the ticket for future use. IOW, they will have heightened expectation of a court challenge. I’d rather request or subpoena the info later–and you should see the falsified and/or sloppy docs they sometimes send! (“Is the how you were trained to complete these forms, officer? Do you feel these procedures are important, or are they just something that waste your time?”)

        • AJ

          @TS, et alia:
          And from down/out/over in Mississippi, the local yokels are facing a Federal lawsuit (1st, 4th, 14th Amdts.) for how they handled two guys who were filming here and there around town–not even TBLs, from what I gather in the article! One thing the Plaintiff may want to consider next time: don’t do it when you have an outstanding warrant. D’oh! 😖

          According to Wikipedia(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Obligation_to_identify), they weren’t even required to give their identities to the TBLs. And yet the Plaintiff was given a ticket under the claim of “disorderly conduct”, which they later (and apparently illegally) changed to “disturbing the public peace.” I’d love to see the State’s defense of either of these claims based on the facts presented in the article. The guys didn’t disturb ANYthing until the TBLs poked around, nor were they apparently being disorderly…or is exercising the First Amdt. now consider disorderly? Methinks the good ol’ boys of MS, where they’re “the Law”, may find themselves getting some education on the Constitution.

          https://www.djournal.com/itawamba/sheriff-judge-deputy-sued-for-alleged-rights-violations/article_233157bb-913a-5229-ae1d-215f3241f965.html

        • TS

          @AJ

          Minor warrant issue, but what where the Sheriff, Deputy, and Judge thinking?! That’s crazy! I wonder if they’ll use phonics to teach the Constitution lessons? 😆

    • Jun

      Thanks for this. Just ordered a copy. I’ve mentioned our return to being a constitutional republic in other posts. Always have been, but previous administrations (last 2 – 3 decades) have brainwashed the people into calling our country a democracy. Which is a devilish trick, because we PRACTICE (verb) our democracy as a Constitutional Republic. Not, we ARE a democracy (in noun form). See. As “a democracy” we have registries. We also have the victimhood culture that is given nearly all of the rights to take AWAY the rights of Americans who offend them. A Constitutional Republic does not and must not allow that. As human beings and Americans, we each are of INHERENT VALUE (Gorsuch’s philosophy in his other book on euthanasia).
      This brainwashing about this country BEING a democracy is perpetuated in all television “programming”, music industry, 99.9% of the news networks, magazines, etc. Our previous administrations (both sides of politics) got the media’s help to perpetuate this lie/propaganda. Let’s keep in mind our supposed Constitutional law graduate, 44, allowed IML. Because, you know, democracy (supposed majority with brainwashed thought-forms) won. Over constitutional law.
      Again, thanks for sharing this article. It supports what I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. I am quite excited about our country and where it’s headed. And my love for it never went away, as much as I’d thought it had.

      • @ Jun

        I am quite excited about our country and where it’s headed. And my love for it never went away, as much as I’d thought it had.
        ——————————
        What gives you your sense of optimism? I read your post and was thinking, “ya, there’s no way to get our republic back.” Not with so many forces arrayed against it. The most powerful being one you didn’t mention: brainwashing kids for the last 30-40 years in public school, which has taken us exactly to where we are in this debate about republic vs democracy (which you laid out eloquently). But I don’t see grounds for optimism…

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      “I think he will [Gorsuch] on our side if we can ever get good cases in front of him.”
      —–
      I 100% agree. He really seems to see how far off course our country has gone with so many SCOTUS interpretations over the decades. Unlike most his colleagues, he doesn’t automatically spout stare decisis. If we can get a few more like him on the bench, there may be hope for this republic after all.

      I got a copy of his book on release date (9/10), but have yet to crack it open. I hope it’s a good read; I suspect it will be.

  6. ReadyToFight

    Maybe we should be pushing to all be declared “Disabled” since we can’t find decent jobs, housing, or peace and be covered under a protective class status.
    The Registry is State to State “administrative”
    Pretty sure as long as that word remains in there they don’t have to abide by the Federal Laws or the Constitution apparently.
    And IML is Harassment, plain and simple.
    Hopefully someday we’ll see Law Makers stick to the truth as well as calling a spade a spade.

  7. AJ

    *sigh* Another week of nothing out of the 10th on Millard. That’s now 295 days since argument on 11/15/2018. Wow, that’s slow! Is it excessive case load that’s slowing them? Is it a tough call to make? Is there in-fighting? It sure would be nice to have a decision one way or the other.

    • CR

      AJ, here is a link to some stats for federal courts for the past year ending in June 2019:

      https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-court-management-statistics-june-2019

      The summary table for US Courts of Appeals shows that the median time from filing an appeal to disposition for the 10th circuit is 9.0 months. That’s a median. They’ve already exceeded that for Millard. I didn’t notice a range.

      The table shows 2014 through 2019, and that median time has grown longer over the years.

      Bummer, but we just have to wait it out.

  8. Chris f

    Another interesting article on Gorsuch with RBG and their opposing views.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/10/politics/rbg-neil-gorsuch-welcome/index.html

    I love his response to her examples. Really defeats any argument about justices thinking they can take it on themselves to re interpret the constition to the temporary or permanent whims of the people. If it is a permanent change in the thinking of the people then it will be added to the constitution and justices shouldnt take it on themselves to bend it…like in 2003 when retroactively punishing sex offenders seemed like a good idea.

  9. Mot

    CERTIFICATE OF REHAB…I have a court date next month is Los Angeles Superior Court for my application for a COR and since I worked with the Public Defenders Office I do not know what to expect in Court? I was told just show up on time. I need to find out from someone who has gone through this and learn what to expect my offense is 664/288(a) . Any insight on that day and then afterwards will make me feel more relaxed
    Thanks

  10. mike r

    Well people you do not see me on here much lately as I am extremely busy with college, work, and family, but here is my latest going to the 9th Circuit.
    https://ufile.io/cu0ownce
    Fight it till the end…………

    • Jason

      https://apple.news/AoVht0BxiTIiuBxr0wq_V4Q

      The Judge in the Brock Turner case is being treated as a SO, can’t even hold a job after being recalled.

    • TS

      Go @miker Go

    • Chris f

      Best of luck with this appeal!

      I don’t think people realize how your one Pro Se case could be the catalyst that takes down the registry. You cover all of the Constitional violations and use all of the arguments that have been posted here that dont get touched by regular attorneys with no skin in the game.

      It is obvious why nobody else makes it this far after seeing what you have gone through. First, every argument you make gets ignored because they just cite irrelevant other lost sex offender cases and dismiss your case. Then, when you go to appeal they threaten you with their legal fees if you continue. No wonder everyone else drops the fight.

      Let’s hope the appeals judge at least can pass a 3rd grade reading test and understands basic logic.

      Go Mike R!

  11. MKay

    A.B. 1215, a three year ban on police body cam face surveillance technology, needs our support. Later we can continue the fight for a permanent ban on this dangerous technology. Imagine what a simple traffic stop might be like if there were a school or park either up or downstream of the road we were on, not to mention what could happen with officers having issues with sex crimes.

    https://www.activistpost.com/2019/09/victory-california-senate-votes-against-face-surveillance-on-police-body-cams.html

  12. Chris f

    So sex offenders aren’t the only ones the government puts in a position of not being able to make a living to rise up out of a hole?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/09/13/supreme-court-traffic-stop-case-could-drastically-limit-drivers-fourth-amendment-rights/amp/

    Even if the case prevails it will only scratch the surface of the issue. It won’t do anything to stop states from revoking licenses from poor people that can’t pay fines and thus get deeper in debt.

    • R M

      From the article: “Rallying behind the state, the U.S. Department of Justice, 17 state attorneys general, and several law enforcement groups have all penned amicus briefs that largely echo Kansas’s arguments.”… ie, all monetary recipients.
      “The National Fraternal Order of Police claimed the Kansas Supreme Court decision “jeopardizes police officer and public safety.””… ie, all monetary recipients. And how does it “jeopardize[] police officer and public safety.” Because they have parking tickets?

    • TS

      The premise of someone driving a registrant’s car by a school sounds familiar when LE stops people under the same thinking without further infraction needed to process a stop.

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      Thanks for posting this. I read this case a month or two ago and am waiting with not-quite bated breath for oral arguments. I don’t see how KS can overcome the reasonable suspicion standard, as it truly was a hunch. I would even say it was purely on a hunch that the TBL even ran the plate, since apparently the vehicle was doing nothing wrong.

      This case has important outcomes for RCs and those with whom they share vehicles. People on here have reported being pulled over in CA for nothing other than an ALPR hit for being a RC-owned vehicle. Just as in this case, that is absolutely zilch on the reasonable suspicion meter.

      I’m rather sure where J. Gorsuch will fall on this, what with his views on the Fourth Amdt. I’m curious where Reichsminister Alito will fall, though were I forced to bet I’d say he rules for KS. Heaven forbid TBLs get reined in at all.

      =====

      I sat up in my chair when I read this tidbit:
      *****
      [T]he National Defense Attorney Association argued that the ruling “threatens Kansas’s interest in prosecuting wrongdoing” and even claimed that “license suspension or revocation are not penalties for the casual traffic infraction.”
      *****
      It turns out Forbes has horrible fact-checkers. It’s the National DISTRICT Attorney Association that said this in its brief (http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-556/103711/20190621122731043_18-556tsacNationalDistrictAttorneysAssociation.pdf). Think about it for two seconds, Forbes staff, why the heck would DEFENSE attorneys argue on behalf of the State?!? Nice job by a “Senior Contributor.” (I’ve already notified Forbes of the error.)

      BTW, what’s going on in KS? They have 3 cases pending with SCOTUS (Kahler v. KS, KS v. Garcia, KS v. Glover), topped only by the US with 4 cases.

      @R M:
      Expanding on your question, how does it jeopardize TBLs by their NOT pulling someone over based on nothing more than a hunch (and sometimes one data point from their ALPR magic 8-ball)?

  13. Try me

    After reading about the brutal attack on the Medesto man falsely fingered as being a registrant, I contacted a source and bought a hand gun. So I’m a felon. So it’s illegal. So what!
    As an outcast, I figure I am on my own for protection and preservation. As former military that has seen combat, I have no issue with taking a life.

    • AJ

      @Try me:
      The funny part is the Government cannot compel you to register; SCOTUS ruled it a Fifth Amdt. self-incrimination violation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States). Some changes were made to the law to try to fix things, but the underlying problem with the Fifth remains. From the URL:
      *****
      The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
      *****

    • C

      As long as it’s just for last resort defense I support your decision.

      I also hope you are posting from an anonymized IP.

  14. Lake County

    Gov. Newsom grants executive clemency to 21 individuals, many of these people had very serious crimes.

    http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php/news/62605-gov-newsom-grants-executive-clemency-to-21-individuals

    • R M

      Interesting. The great majority of them involved a person’s death yet none of them involve a sex crime.

      • Lake County

        Yes, apparently being involved in a murder makes you safer than someone that looks at a nude photo of a 16 year old. Makes sense to me…?

  15. JesusH

    Question for you guys in California with kids in school. How do you ask the school for permission to visit the campus? I think the law says you need written permission but I’m not sure it says your request needs to be in writing.

    My kid started his senior year of high school and there’s a parent meeting next about the college process. I should probably go to that so I know what’s going on.

    I’ve been avoiding any school stuff with my kids for the last 5 years but this is very important.

    I don’t understand how this is even legal to do. As a parent I need to have 100% access to everything my kids do or where they are. And as students, they need to have the same opportunities as other kids. Parents needing to ask permission is a disability to their education.

    Thanks.

    • Lake County

      It could be risky for you if you don’t get permission in writing. Trust no ones verbal approval. You just need to get a simple note of approval stating they know you are a registrant. They may require you to be supervised at all times while on campus. The risk is too high to not have written approval from a school or district administrator.

  16. R M

    Hi. I just got a visit from the DCS (department of community supervision) with the upcoming Halloween restrictions. In the past those registered and on supervision had to stay in their home during a certain time frame on Halloween night.

    This year we have to report to the Sheriffs Office from 5:45pm to 9pm.

    How can DCS just make up new restrictions?

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 *

.