|
|
|
|
|
[Sign Up Now] to Receive Our FREE Daily SCVTV-SCVNews Digest by E-Mail |
|
|
Inside Weather
Calendar 
Today in S.C.V. History November 24
|
Comment On This Story |
Opinion Section Policy
Read More From... RECENT COMMENTARY
Thursday, Nov 21, 2024
Wednesday, Nov 20, 2024
Wednesday, Nov 13, 2024
Monday, Nov 11, 2024
Monday, Nov 11, 2024
Thursday, Nov 7, 2024
|
Tweet This
Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
RSS
Latest Additions to SCVNews.com
|
|
|
The Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce will hold its annual Awards + Installation event on Friday, Jan. 31 at the Hyatt Regency.
 |
The Valley Industry Assoction will host a Cocktails & Conversation event with Cameron Smyth on Thursday, Dec. 12, 5:30=7:30 p.m. at Margarita’s Mexican Grill, 23320 Valencia Blvd., Valencia, CA 91355.
 |
Following an extensive search, the Governing Board of the William S. Hart Union High School District has unanimously selected current Interim Superintendent Dr. Michael Vierra as the new Hart District Superintendent, filling the vacancy created when Mike Kuhlman resigned effective June 30.
 |
"Christmas Carol: The True Meaning of Christmas" will be performed on stage at the Canyon Theatre Guild on weekends beginning Friday, Nov. 29 thru Monday, Dec. 23 at 24242 Main St., Newhall, CA 91321.
 |
|
The California Air Resources Board has approved a $34.94 million incentives funding plan that will continue support ongoing efforts to increase access to medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission trucks, buses and equipment, with a focus on small businesses.
 |
Preparing to decorate for the holidays? If you come across broken string lights that are no longer usable, instead of tossing in the trash you can now drop them off for recycling at one of the SAFE collection centers
 |
The nonprofit Raising the Curtain Foundation will host a fundraising event, "Holidayland" with mid-century pop culture expert Charles Phoenix, on Sunday, Dec. 8 at 3 p.m.
 |
The Santa Clarita City Council will hold its regular meeting Tuesday, Nov. 26, beginning with a special closed meeting at 5 p.m., followed immediately with open session at 6 p.m.
 |
The American Cancer Society Relay for Life of Santa Clarita Valley will present its holiday boutique fundraiser, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 23, at Santa Clarita United Methodist Church, 26640 Bouquet Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91350.
 |
California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation has announced it will begin accepting applications for the State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program at 8 a.m. on Jan. 6, 2025.
 |
|
|
Due to construction and weather delays, the closure of the exercise staircase at Central Park, 27150 Bouquet Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91350, will be extended through Nov. 28.
 |
Santa Clarita Ballet's 30th anniversary production of "The Nutcracker" will perform, Saturday and Sunday, Dec. 14-15 at the Santa Clarita Performing Arts Center, 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
 |
Registration is underway for the College of the Canyons winter 2025 session, which boasts more than 300 class sections.
 |
Christmas came early for The Master's University Men's Basketball Head Coach Kelvin Starr.
 |
Theatre in a Week and Off Book Theatre is back with its holiday one act comedy "Holiday Hijinx" Friday, Dec. 13- Sunday, Dec. 15 at The MAIN in Old Town Newhall.
 |
|
The Santa Clarita Master Chorale presents its Silver Bell Jubilee concert Sunday, Dec. 8, 4 p.m. at Santa Clarita Performing Arts Center, 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.
 |
The holiday season is just around the corner and it’s one of the most magical times of the year.
 |
Celebrate this special time of year with the 29th annual Winter Magic Lighted Boat Parade and holiday event Saturday, Dec. 7 at Castaic Lake, Lower Lagoon.
 |
1967 - Local voters approve formation of community college and elect COC's first five-member board - Dr. William G. Bonelli Jr., Bruce Fortine, Sheila Dyer, Peter Huntsinger, Edward Muhl [story]
|
You can make a difference in a child or teen’s life this holiday season through the Boys and Girls Club of the Santa Clarita Valley. You can volunteer at a club holiday event, host a toy drive, sponsor a club family or make a donation.
 |
Art, in whatever the medium, can communicate so much. It can inspire imagination, exude peace and calm, or tell the world the stories of a community and a culture or connect on an extremely personal level.
 |
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
44 Comments
Good. SB 54 would’ve made it worse.
Good. SB 54 would’ve made it worse.
First the Supreme Court stopped the restrictions, then the Dems killed this bill. Pardon me Senator Runner but we seem to understand fine. It seems to be YOU that doesn’t understand.
I think the registry makes things more dangerous, to begin with, it certainly doesn’t stop any crime, anyone who believes that simply isn’t using their brain to think it through. I don’t think reminding someone of a crime they committed, year after year, long after it is out of their day to day existence, only stirs feelings that are not necessarily good for the society they live in and are free to move about.
I don’t want one of them committing a suicidal act and harming my family in the process; i.e., head on crashes which I have read is a common method.
No Ms. Runner, it is YOU who doesn’t understand that the law is unconstitutional. You are still creating a blanket ban even if it’s a smaller blanket. Perhaps you should consider rethinking the registry. California is only 1 of 4 states that has lifetime registration creating a one size fits all approach. An 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old should not be classified with violent rapists, but that’s the kind of registration system we have.
The biggest irony is that if your bill would have succeeded, more registrants would have been pushed into YOUR district.
Well said, host! The courts have spoken on this issue, Senator Runner. Research has shown that residency restrictions are ineffective, in fact counter-productive, and the courts have said they are unconstitutional. I would like to add that the “research study” that was given as support for your 2006 law never existed! This was brought forward in the In Re Taylor case and is part of the court record.
Ms. Runner, you are ignorantly misguided — and I’m not saying that to offend or insult, it is simply to point out your lack of knowledge.
Your Jessica’s Law and your bill both are designed as solutions to a problem that does not exist, at best, or perhaps are more deviously simply hate crimes themselves.
There are NO sex offenders required to register in California. California requires only FORMER sex offenders to register, it puts current offenders in prison, and for long sentences, the longest of any state. Mind you, this is not a word game, as…
Despite the constant screaming about a high recidivism rate, in fact, there is a shockingly low recidivism rate among former sex offenders. A study put out by California in October 2013 indicated only 2.5% of sex offenders reoffend (and they are sent to prison, not to registration).
This number is not a fake or an aberration, as just a decade earlier, under Republican rule, the federal Justice Department put out another similar study showing that across America, only 3% of sex offenders reoffend.
This if very contrary to the false information you constantly spread.
In addition, New Jersey, the home of Megan’s Law and under a Republican governor, has recently put out studies that indicate registration and all the collateral disabilities and punishments that go with it, has done absolutely ZERO one way or the other to affect the rate of sex offenses. It is a 100% waste of time and energy, it accomplishes zip.
So why is it done — just pure hate and ignorance, your kind of ignorance.
Mind you, New Jersey does not require lifetime registration, nor does it require registration (and all the collateral disabilities and punishments that go with it) for most of the offenses for which California requires it — gee, California even imposes it on misdemeanants, and YOU in your constant ballot measures and bills have specifically included misdemeanants in the punishments you have imposed! You even impose all this punishing stuff retroactively to everyone who has been even so much as convicted of a single count of, say, misdemeanor indecent exposure all the way back to 1947. You keep screaming about “children,” yet most of those you keep imposing this on have never offended children!
You constantly run scare tactics and misinformation campaigns. There are no facts to your assertions, you reject any facts that come along. There is no conscience to you for the draconian and horrific things you have imposed, things that just 20 years ago EVERYONE would have said could never happen in America because we stand for much better values that you promulgate.
So what is the re-offense rate for those convicted of a sex offense? Consider first what counts as a re-offense. 88% of the cases, the new offense was a parole violation, things like visiting a unapproved friend, or drinking and perhaps going to a bar. Only 1.8 percent had committed a new sex offense, lower than that of the general population who are not listed on any registry. Our tax dollars are being wasted away on the other 98% because of self serving politicians.
I see that my first comment was not printed. Can’t Sen. Runner deal with the facts?
By the way, this bill would have done nothing to save Maddy Middleton in Santa Cruz. Her murderer (and rapist) was not on any registry, and he is himself a 15 year old child.
When the supreme court of our state has spoken why do you continue to beat a dead horse. You law was unconstitutional. If the courts do not uphold the constitution we will end up like Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. It is really sad when our legislators do not understand the law.
Dear Senator Runner – When are you going to realize that the draconian law that you have earned your political reputation on are unconstitutional? Perhaps, you should look at it this way: The California Supreme Court has deemed this law as unconstitutional, who am I to say otherwise? The answer a politician who lies and misrepresents the facts to gain political notoriety on the backs of the uninformed majority. You like many other politicians thrive on lying and misrepresenting the facts. I wonder if you would gain reelection if all the lies and fabrications of studies that you have cited were exposed and the general public was educated. Something to think about. I know you have lost my vote.
It’s amazing that uneducated people such as yourself can be elected to lead us. Touting unconstitutional legislation to further your political career should be punishable by jail. You’re a waster of our heard earned tax monies and you should be ashamed of yourself
“The California Supreme Court decision creates uncertainty. County governments need a clear process to protect voter approved residency restrictions when possible and expedite relief when necessary; SB 54 provided much needed clarity”. Thank you Senator Runner for trying to protect Californians. Unconstitutional some say? what a sick analysis. Sex offender acts need to be more defined…there is a difference in the 19 yr old having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend vs. the pervert… the predator. After that definition is made then aim needs to be on the creep who goes after little girls and little boys or for that matter any age of a rape victim. I’m worried about the constitutional rights of the innocent much more than the pervert who made the choice to take away the souls and peace of mind of the innocent. AND I sure as heck do not want them living any closer to my family or loved ones than the generous 2000 feet. May they all be relinquished next door to those who think they, the perverts, are the “victims”.
There is not a single American who supports residency restrictions. You people who do are not Americans. If you ever knew what an American is, you forgot.
Let’s not forget that all the former sex offenders already paid there debt , they had the Torture of prison . If anyone thinks that was enjoyable time go try it . After we finish our prison term just leave us alone.
@NPS – the funny (not!) part about the Maddy Middleton case is that the alleged (!) murderer and rapist, a 15 year old child, will be charged as an adult.
If someone had engaged in a conversation with sexual overtones or touched him on the upper thigh the morning of the alleged murder, or if he was in a willing relationship with an older person, he would be a child victim of child sexual abuse the very same day he is being charged as an adult.
Hypocrites, anyone?
@Betty Arenson – this blanket policy was ruled unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court. With that it violates the Constitution. When that happens ALL of us are victims.
If you listen to the hearing (they are all on-line), no one killed anything. Sen. Runner was afforded the opportunity to amend SB 54 to bring it in line with the Constitution and the Court’s decision. Apparently she has not done so and is conceding that the bill is dead.
Sen. Runner – if you are reading this… why have you not made the effort to re-write the bill – since you are so convinced it is constitutional AND important for child protection? Instead of doing so you are using it as a vehicle for political commentary and advancement.
Is it possible that was its purpose all along?
The SCV New. com ‘Commentary Policy’ was violated by Ms. Runner as factually inaccurate, libelous and defamatory. Why did SCV New allow this commentary to proceed? I want a response from the editor!
OK … she says she introduced a bill, and that Democrats killed it. We’re thinking those 2 things are factually accurate. Libel – we don’t see where she is naming a specific individual and accusing him/her of a crime he/she did not commit. So, not libelous. Defamatory – The bar for defaming another politician is extremely high, and this doesn’t reach it.
Factually inaccurate: 1) The Democrats DID NOT killed it. She did not return to the Senate Public Safety Committee with amended option. 2) Jessica’s Law makes California less safer. 3) Ms. Runner said, “SB 54 also clarifies how 2,000 feet should be measured and ensures that only violent sex offenders are subject to the restriction.” SB 54 was for ALL sex offenders, even those whom had been crime free 20-50 years.
Libel:
She is accusing a class of citizens of future crimes, that they will most likely will not commit.
Defaming:
The Runners have been hurting the reputation of reformed sex offenders by saying un-supported things that are false and unfair.
You don’t understand the legal definition of the words you are using.
It is the common defintions of a civil society.
Libel? Defamation? Probably not. But the “Dems” did NOT kill this bill, like Sen. Runner alleges. The Democrats on the CA Senate Public Safety Committee did NOT advance the bill as written, rather requested that Sen. Runner re-submit in a fashion that would pass constitutional muster. Sen. Runner was unable or unwilling to do so. So now she is blaming Democrats for ‘killing’ her bill when it was never viable in the first place, given the recent Supreme Court Decision.
While there may be no grounds for a defamation claim this publication is nevertheless providing a platform for a public servant to spread half-truths, negating her own shortcomings and personal agenda. That is nothing to be proud of.
what you’re talking about appeared in the op-ed section. we publish anything from anyone who lives in or represents the SCV in our op-ed section. It is the “public access” space of SCVNews.com. We edit things in the op-ed section for punctuation, not for content.
@SCVNews.com – appreciate your commitment to the community. However, when this concerns an elected public official in this area who does not tell the truth regarding how things unfolded (it is all on tape for the public to view) and USES you to advance their agenda…. all I have to say is that you have been (ab)used. I am not happy about that and I cannot imagine that you could be, either. But your call.
So misleading. Jessica’s Law contains multiple components; the 2000 foot / residence restriction is but one and its the only one that was rule unconstitutional by the Calif Supreme Court…Components of JL stand, California has the highest rate of sex offenders in its population of all states; JL was passed in NOV, 2006 OVERWHELMINGLY BY VOTERS (hardly all were conservatives) it passed 70.5% to 29.5% and many of the con-side were defense lawyers and their ilk. Someone earlier mentioned a term like “reformed sex offender”; aside from the situation I mentioned earlier about the 19 yr old with the consenting 17 yr old is one thing, the slime that violently rapes anyone or the pervert that targets little girls and boys is very much another. Them reformed? Not! They are more than unfit for society, they are predatory and dangerous. Senator Runner, keep up the good work.
Jessica Law would not have protected, the kid that law was named after. Just because a law is voted in overwhelming do not mean it is right. At one time the OVERWHELMNING of Americans thought it was right to force the Native Americans from their homes into isolated and disvalued wastelands. Hitler convince, OVERWHELMNING, number of Germans, in was right to send millions of Jews to the ovens. Thousands of young Amerian, men died in 2 wars protect us from the doctrines of Nazism and now we have politicians using this same, Nazi scheme to make it right to attack and to displace a curtain disfavored American citizens. The United State is supposed to be a better than Nazi Germany. It is suppose to be a Nation of liberty, purpose and opportunity to ALL citizens. The Runner’s and their Jessica Law, in any form, are wrong and a kin to Nazism.
Betty how could you possibly know this:
“it passed 70.5% to 29.5% and many of the con-side were defense lawyers and their ilk”
Please step away from the keyboard.
If you are the kind of person who does not bother to let EVIDENCE and FACTS influence their opinion on a subject, then read no further. Because FACTS are all that follows.
Shortly after the Sad Diego ruling, Sharon’s husband, George, was on KFI’s a.m. 640 John & Ken show.
At that time he admitted, on the air, that there was “nothing magical about the 2000 foot restriction”.
He further stated that the ONLY reason they picked it was because it was “a number” that survived court challenges in other states.
That is just PART of the reason the court found in the SD case that there was “No RATIONAL relationship” between the restrictions and the stated goal of protecting children.
And so an RSO does not live within 2000 feet of a school or park. He can’t walk or drive there? IF he is that kind of SO. Why do I say IF, Because stranger attacks by SOs account for less than 5% of molestations.
Both state and federal justice departments agree that if a child is to be molested, there is a GREATER than 90% chance that it will be by someone who is NOT an RSO and is known to the child and/or his family and that they all trust. Such as another family member, a trusted member of the community (teacher, sports coach, pastor etc.)
One point I want to emphasize:
If, as George Runner said,there is/was nothing magical (in protecting kids) about the 2000 foot restriction, AND that the ONLY reason they picked it was that it stood up to court challenges in other states,
then HOW is it going to be effective in Sharon Runner’s “more workable” bill, even if you just limit it to level III and/or SVP offenders?
If there is no magic to it, how would it then magically change to having a the RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP to protecting children that it does not now have?
The Runners and Tim Donnelly should be put on a spaceship and shipped to Mars. All this sex offender hysteria is madness.
There is not one single American who supports residency restrictions. It is an outrage that we allow it to even be considered.
For all the un-Americans who do support residency restrictions – such restrictions have been soundly proven to do nothing positive. I know you don’t really care that it wouldn’t protect anyone, but that’s a fact.
The thing I can’t figure out is why Sharon Runner and her co-criminals want people who have SHOT CHILDREN WITH GUNS to live next door to schools, parks, and the like. She must not have realized that that was allowed or she surely would have simply included “gun offenders” in her idiotic law. She also must realize that we don’t even have a national Gun Offender Registry. Which proves that, when it comes to “sex offenders”, all the talk of Runner and other criminals about “public safety”, “protecting children”, and such, are just lies. The main purpose of the Sex Offender Registries is to enable a witch hunt. It is nanny big government at its un-American worst.
I appreciate your interest in the welfare of ALL children. These kind of restrictions affect the children of registered VOTERS and put their safety and welfare at risk. I believe in community safety, but 98% of us are not the danger, just people like yourself. We made mistakes that we must live with, but how long do we have to be persecuted for them.
For “Joe” —whatever your real identity is: “Betty how could you possibly know this:
‘ “it passed 70.5% to 29.5% and many of the con-side were defense lawyers and their ilk” ‘
Please step away from the keyboard.”
How do I know???? I RESEARCHED (IT)THE VOTING and the opposition. I detest having to educate lazy people so why you tell me to stay away from the keyboard, I recommend you GET ON IT. Here’s THE QUOTE “Joe”..”It was supported by Governor Schwarzenegger and law enforcement throughout the state. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (a criminal defense attorneys association) opposed Proposition 83 and wrote the opposing argument for the voter pamphlet”. After all of the facts I gave, you picked on this one. So telling and so predictable.
BETTY
DUring the San Diego Court hearing BOTH sides had a chance to prevent their FACTS and EVIDENCE, yet the court decided that the 2000 foot limit and other restrictions bored “no rational relationship” to the goal of protecting children.
In addition there was George Runner’s public statement, on KFI radio shortly after the San Diego decision, that there was nothing magical about the 2000 foot limit. And the ONLY reason they picked it, picked this arbitrary number to ompose on people, was because it had withstand court challenges in other states.
The other side could not present to the court ANY tangible evidence that such restrictions were in ANYway effective.
So, if it doesnt have ANY actual benifit?
Do you really think that is a good way to make laws? Tricking the people to vote for something that has no actual effect. especially when that supposed effect is the protection of their children. I’m sorry, despite what Sharon rRunner says, none of that sounds reasonable to me
MICHAEL, Oh my gosh….the “distance” is the issue? The answer would be that some number has to be picked. Is 1000 better; is 5000 better? What’s “rational”? What’s the “trickery”? Lets be real; if these molesters and murderers were kept behind bars as they should be, there would be no need to draw boundaries on the outside of prison walls. The fact the perverts are even allowed to contest the matter is pretty darn generous of the USA’s Democratic society. Do you want one of these bad characters living next to you or you family members, especially the vulnerable? I don’t. Apparently when the law passed in 2006, 70.5 % of Californian voters didn’t want them either. You mention “benefit”; keeping these creeps locked up has a ton of benefits for our society ….. the very society they breached.
I understanf what you’re saying Betty. However, not everybody on the registry is there for the same of offense. not everyone is the type of monster you are speaking of. And that is what the court rules in the san diego case. That it is unconstitutional to apply the same standard to everybody just because they’re on the registry.
less than 3 percent of stranger attacks on children are done by people who are currrntly registered sex offenders. and less than 2 percent of sex offenders are returnef to prison for another sex crime.
that is where the trick comes in. The people that are for this legislation manipulate the statistics and present them in such a way so that the number seem much higher.
For example they simply say that X percent of all registered sex Offenders are returned to prison.
what they do not bother to tell you is that that higher number are not all return to prison for a sex crimes. they are returned for parole violations ot maybe some other crime. The fact is
as I said less than 2% are returnef for sex crimes.
BTW, these are not MY made up statistics. They come from the state and federal departments of justice and the california sex offender management board.
And yes, the distance DOES matter. Why should any distance, that is not going to do any good, be imposed?
There has to be practial, rational the court might ssy, ways to deal with a variety and degree of offenders. And, under our laws, the end must justify the means.
And giving people a false sense of security does not do that.
Jessica’s law was a soluation looking for a problem (mass attacks on stranger childern by registered sex offenders) that simply does not exists.
Michael, we agree on something and I said it twice earlier. Every person on the registry has not committed the same crime. I vote for discriminating the acts/convictions. It is the repeat offender, the ones that face the penal system again and again as a way of life and each offense is a little more dangerous: the societal unfit. Imposing “distance” or any other limitation is useless as long as its not enforced. There are a number of articles on the subject and I just read yesterday that 70% of the offenders do not abide by their parole limitations. I do not believe that there are “mass attacks on stranger children”. By the way Michael, thank you for the dialogue in a respectful manner versus name-calling and drive-by shots.
Betty, part of that is one if my points on how stastics, with out details, can be deciving.
There are parole violations and then there are parole violatios. I do not exaggerate when i say not getting a parole violation is slot like not sinning. Even for the most well intntioned religious person.
Many violations are technical and are things that would not be a crime if you or i did them. And parole agents were/are so over loaded with cases thst they would violate a person just to lighten their cases load for the few werks or months they were back inside.
Plus, like any segment of society, you have bank robbers, drug addicts, shoplifters, drug dealer etc. etc. who have also commited a sexual offense
So then the stastics get skewed by people saying that RSOs are returned to prison at X% high rate. When, in fact, the return to prison has nothing to do with a new secual offense.
I am all for delineating the crimes, and I prefer that assessment at the time of the first crime. Like I’ve said multiple times, child predators and full-on rapists are not the same sexual “offense” as the 19 year old male having consensual sex with his 17 yr old girlfriend. As for the post sexual predatory offense such as robbery, burglary whatever, like three-strikes, I think the process is—the perp has a higher degree of responsibility. (H)e is the one who chose to commit a horrid offense and has more, much more, to prove to get back societal trust than the average Joe/Jane that committed a lessor offense the first time. The choice was theirs. Although off of the SB54 subject a bit, one who continues to commit crimes of any nature even if they are not as bad as rape, are simply an expensive troublesome menace unfit for society.
@Betty Arenson – good grief…. where to begin. Let’s see….
“Oh my gosh….the “distance” is the issue?” Uhmmm, yah! It is all about the distance. It is about someone residing 1,999 feet from a school putting our children in grave danger, while 2,001 feet from a school is fine. If this law is not about distance, what then? A distance that, mind you, can be traversed on foot by an average adult in just over 8 minutes. There is always running and driving. Yikes!
“Lets be real; if these molesters and murderers were kept behind bars as they should be, there would be no need to draw boundaries on the outside of prison walls.” Yes let’s be real and remember that murderers(!) once released from prison have no, zero restrictions on ANYTHING. Riddle me that. And keeping them in prison for life? All 850,000 people required to register as sex offenders in this country? People like Zach Anderson (you can easily google him)? Not on my tax dime, thank you very much. And not with my Constitution. And you think someone like that should not be on the list? But he be. And would be subject to Sen. Runner’s law.
“Do you want one of these bad characters living next to you or you family members, especially the vulnerable? I don’t.” And there you have it. Need I remind you that Jessica’s Law is about prohibiting registered sex offenders from residing within a certain proximity from schools and parks. That is how it was sold to the public. It has absolutely nothing to do with “living next to you”. Unless, of course, there are so many centers with diameters large enough that they will result in banishment from entire cities. Oh, what’s that, banishment is against the law. Which is what this court decision is all about. It is also my understanding that in this country, i.e. just past Santa Clarita there are large areas with sparse population (ironically Sen. Runner’s district) where these people will be forced to move to once drive out of YOUR neighborhood. So you think it is okay for other people to have neighbors like that, but unacceptable for you? Let me the one to tell you. These laws (on the face) are about schools and parks and NOT about whom you approve of as a neighbor or your property value. Because that is the bottom line, is it not?
All Sen. Runner was doing with her feeble attempt was to substitute one blanket ban for another. The only difference being who administers the blanket. Tsk tsk. She was asked to come back with a revised bill. Very generous of the committee, including the “Dems”. Apparently she has called uncle and is slamming the very people that gave her a second chance. Keep up the good work? If that is the best she’s got then Lord help us.
“The fact the perverts are even allowed to contest the matter is pretty darn generous of the USA’s Democratic society.” Seriously? Where do you get this stuff from? Certain people not allowed to contest something in a court of law is the direct antithesis of a democracy.
“By the way Michael, thank you for the dialogue in a respectful manner versus name-calling and drive-by shots.” hmmmm… who used words like “slime”, “pervert”, “creep”? That is hardly a respectful manner. Sure sounds like name-calling and drive-by shots to me. I do not know @Michael from Adam and he may well be one of those people you so loathe (and if so called the names above) but he’s got you in the class department by a mile.
There is not one single American who supports residency restrictions. It is an outrage that we allow it to even be considered.
For all the un-Americans who do support residency restrictions – such restrictions have been soundly proven to do nothing positive. I know you don’t really care that it wouldn’t protect anyone, but that’s a fact.
The thing I can’t figure out is why Sharon Runner and her co-criminals want people who have SHOT CHILDREN WITH GUNS to live next door to schools, parks, and the like. She must not have realized that that was allowed or she surely would have simply included “gun offenders” in her idiotic law. She also must realize that we don’t even have a national Gun Offender Registry. Which proves that, when it comes to “sex offenders”, all the talk of Runner and other criminals about “public safety”, “protecting children”, and such, are just lies. The main purpose of the Sex Offender Registries is to enable a witch hunt. It is nanny big government at its un-American worst.