The Anaheim City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting persons required to register under CA PC 290 to enter public city parks on Oct 23. California RSOL members spoke in opposition.
Wow! With a pending lawsuit that has a good chance at declaring these laws unconstitutional. How stupid are these people?
Janice Bellucci
Guest
October 25, 2012 1:47 pm
Very stupid!
VSPSV(S?)
Guest
October 26, 2012 6:45 am
Come election time they tend to get more stupid. They have a fear of losing their income and benefits.
steve
Guest
October 26, 2012 8:57 am
Janice if everyone were to send in a letter stating they wanted permission to go to a park or beach and are denied, would they be allowed to sue later if these laws were ruled unconstitutional?
http404
Guest
October 26, 2012 10:42 am
I was wondering the same thing in having a large group of individuals apply in order to participate collectively in a peaceful protest in one of the city’s parks. I would say if there were any application denials it would speak volumes as to the violation of constitutional rights.
The absurdity is two fold, first – anyone with the authority to approve these applications is going to be reluctant because of their own perceived liability, and second – that an application must be submitted ten days in advance for EACH time you want to go to the park. Just think how that works out for the child who says hey dad, can we go fishing at the park lake today? “Sorry son, we have to wait 10 days and that’s if they approve it.”
Janice Bellucci
Guest
October 28, 2012 10:03 am
Yes, that is a good idea. Anyone who thinks he or she may wish to sue a city that has both a park ban and the possibility of obtaining a permit to enter a park should request a permit at least once. Be sure to keep a copy of your request as well as the reply that you receive. All could be used as evidence in a future legal challenge.
DZ
Guest
November 2, 2012 12:19 pm
The city I live in, Elk Grove,CA passed such a law, but without any provision for being given a permit to enter a park, it is just illegal. I thought this had already been ruled unconstitutional at the state level. I don’t understand how laws can be passed infringing my freedom based on a past crime that I have already done my time for, especially when the freedoms I’m being denied are not related to the past crime and there is no empirical evidence that the law keeps anyone safer or that there is even a problem that it purports to prevent.
Wow! With a pending lawsuit that has a good chance at declaring these laws unconstitutional. How stupid are these people?
Very stupid!
Come election time they tend to get more stupid. They have a fear of losing their income and benefits.
Janice if everyone were to send in a letter stating they wanted permission to go to a park or beach and are denied, would they be allowed to sue later if these laws were ruled unconstitutional?
I was wondering the same thing in having a large group of individuals apply in order to participate collectively in a peaceful protest in one of the city’s parks. I would say if there were any application denials it would speak volumes as to the violation of constitutional rights.
The absurdity is two fold, first – anyone with the authority to approve these applications is going to be reluctant because of their own perceived liability, and second – that an application must be submitted ten days in advance for EACH time you want to go to the park. Just think how that works out for the child who says hey dad, can we go fishing at the park lake today? “Sorry son, we have to wait 10 days and that’s if they approve it.”
Yes, that is a good idea. Anyone who thinks he or she may wish to sue a city that has both a park ban and the possibility of obtaining a permit to enter a park should request a permit at least once. Be sure to keep a copy of your request as well as the reply that you receive. All could be used as evidence in a future legal challenge.
The city I live in, Elk Grove,CA passed such a law, but without any provision for being given a permit to enter a park, it is just illegal. I thought this had already been ruled unconstitutional at the state level. I don’t understand how laws can be passed infringing my freedom based on a past crime that I have already done my time for, especially when the freedoms I’m being denied are not related to the past crime and there is no empirical evidence that the law keeps anyone safer or that there is even a problem that it purports to prevent.