Sex Offender - 1000 yards from bus stop ruling.

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Taler, Jul 29, 2006.

  1. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    No doubt you've seen the ruling from the judge providing for the "no convicted sex offender living within 1,000 yards of a bus stop" law being enforced, but after school boards formally designate an area a bus stop. I'm not raising this to take a stand on what to do with people who are released from prison after serving their sentence, yet who still, apparently, pose some threat.

    However...

    Apparently the legality of the law is being contested in fed court by the Georgia ACLU and the Southern Center for Human Rights.

    My first question for the legal types here is, assuming that the law, or at least that 1,000 yard provision, is found unconsitutional, is there a potential carryover effect that might extend to the bus stop restriction when packing? The implication seems to be, at least with regard to school bus stops, that they must be "designated", whatever that means, and that none (or few) exist because they haven't been "designated." And... that restriction, when (if ever) it gets enforced may not stand up to review. Am I reaching too far here? Could a ruling have a favorable effect on carrying at any bus stop?

    My second question is how a suit can be brought regarding that specific provision when nobody has yet been harmed by the law, and consequently brought suit.

    Thanks in advance.

    Taler
     
  2. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Professional Troll

    1,926
    3
    38
    I know I am probably going to get reamed for saying this, but here goes...

    I think the whole new sex offender law needs to be overturned. If the legislature feels that sex offenders still pose a threat when they are let out of prison, then they need to make the sentences longer or provide some sort of counseling to assure reabilitation. Its only going to take for one sex offender to say enough is enough and snap and really hurt someone.

    What is really sad that in the great police state of GA, it doesn't take much to become a sex offender. You ever have to pee really bad while driving and stop on the side of the road to take a leak? Guess what, if someone sees you and reports you to the police, bam you get charge with sex offender law. What about if a kid, possibly your kid, is acting out and an adult uses corporal punishment to discipline the behavior. Guess what is you slap the child on the bottom you could get hit with a sex offender charge. I am not making this stuff up either. These situations I described happen to otherwise decent law abiding folk.

    This kind of gestapo crap needs to stop. It is going to come to a point to where it is a sex offense to even look at someone. This is bad law and it is no different than "Malum Prohibitium" laws that are felonies and otherwise law-abiding folk loose their rights altogether... :rant:
     

  3. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    :ianal:

    However, here are my :2cents: :

    1) The statute that applies to carrying at or near the places where buses involved in public transportation is completely separate from the statute in question. If the court were to strike down part or all of the new statute, I don't see how it would have a direct effect on the statute related to carrying near public transportation bus stops.

    2) Unlike the school bus stop situation, every stop that I have ever seen a public transportation bus make, aside from some kind of emergency situation or breakdown, has been at a place designated by, at the very least, a sign. This is not the case with school bus stops, which could be anywhere and change with little or no warning.

    It is my understanding had some people were visited by LEOs and notified that they have to relocate or be charged under this new statute. To me that should be enough to provide for standing to challenge the statue; however, I must admit the I am often left in disbelief regarding rulings on standing. I think the courts issue decisions that are completely unreasonable (i.e. the folks in D.C. that had no standing to challenge the ban on weapons because they hadn't been charged yet).

    Now I can sit back and wait for JRM or MP can explain how wrong my logic is... :lol:
     
  4. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    ICP_Juggalo, I feel your pain; however, I will resist the urge to commiserate further in a feable attempt to avoid seeing this thread get off track.
     
  5. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    I agree completely with ICPJ. The sex offender school bus stop law is dumb, and won't accomplish anything, if enforced, other than disrupt the lives of people that we have deemed worth of re-integration into society.

    As for Taler's question: There is logic to it, but I think geaux_tigers makes a likely winning counterpoint. Municipal bus stops, even if not designated by act of the municipal board, are marked. School bus stops are not, and school buses frequently stop at places other than the places the school transportation people designate. Wherever the kids congregate waiting for the bus is where the bus driver stops.
     
  6. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    I guess that makes a school bus stop a public gathering? :roll:
     
  7. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Yikes. Never really considered that before. That statute really needs to be changed.
     
  8. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    I absolutely agree regarding the law being stupid, but I think I didn't express my point very well regarding the bus stop thing.

    Of course there's a big difference between a muni stop and a couple of kids standing on a corner in a neighborhood. Th point about the stops that I see as significant, (again, if ever designated) is that the law will cause something like 10,000 people to be forced to move, and probably well away from towns. And that is what the suit is about, in other words, how can a law force people (sex offenders who haved served their sentence(s)) to move, eliminating their right to chose to live where they want. (Is there such a right, or am I just under the misimpression that I can live where I want?) I think this is manure.

    But if the designation/implementation aspect actually gets accomplished, then someone is either forced to move or gets another ten years in the slammer. Alternatively, the lawsuit prevails.

    Another thought: will the designation of a school bus stop instantly create an extension of the school zone? You think some judge might see it that way? I know that seems beyond the pale,... or maybe not.

    If the restriction is overturned, is there anything precedential that would "apply" to ccw? What the suit seems to say is that eliminating a person's right to live somewhere can't be trumped by a prejudicial law. You have a right to carry all right, but have to disarm if the walk from you're parking place to the store takes you past a bus stop. Maybe I'm stretching here.

    But it seems to me that what's good for the goose (the bus stop provision restricting where you can live is illegal for you ex-convicts sex offenders) is good for the gander (the bus stop and other stupid provisions restricting where you can carry (including public gatherings) is likewise illegal.)

    Sorry. Still not sure I'm making myself clear. Heck, maybe I'm just clutching at straws.
     
  9. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Taler, I don't think you are grasping at straws. I think there are good arguments that GA's CCW law is unconstitutional (especially the state constitution).
     
  10. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    38
    0
    6
    This SO law could, if you squint kinda hard, be an eminnent domain issue. Consider: some people (having served their time & fulfilled all requirements resulting from trial, conviction & sentencing) are having their properties taken from them without just compensation. That in turn gets bent by an equal pretection issue, as those evicted are so removed while anyone else living there would not.
     
  11. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    They aren't taking sex offender's homes. They are just saying the sex offenders can't live in them. :wink:
     
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Actually, they are taking property. One of the fundamental rights of ownership of real property is the right to occupy it. By making occupancy a crime, property has been taken away.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    381
    83
    Repeat child molesters should be killed.

    Problem solved.
     
  14. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    Take the word repeat out of that statement and you have it right MP. Also add in drug dealers and I think we'll be headed in the right direction...
     
  15. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    MP, we've had our share of discussions on capital punishment, so I'll leave that one alone. What do you propose we do with repeat roadside urinators?
     
  16. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
  17. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
  18. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    Seriously though, My wife and I went to dinner last night with a friend and his date who happens to be a local LEO who is in charge of "managing" the "sex offenders" in the area. I asked her how the new law effects her job and she said it really just makes it harder for her to keep track of them because they are spread out in remote areas and such. She agrees that the solution would be to keep the ones locked up that can't be trusted. She also says there is no such thing as rehab, that a rapist or child molester will always be inclined to repeat the offense when released into the public no matter what you do or where you put them. We agree'd that the answer is to remove the sex offender lable from guys that pee on the side of the road or the 19 year old that had consentual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and keep the real sex offenders behind bars for life or in the case of the real nastys like child molesters and violent rapist, capitol punishment.
     
  19. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    MP makes a value statement that is certainly subject to debate, providing his response to the rehab question,... or maybe not.

    Frankly, with regard to drugs, I've always wondered why they're illegal? I mean, I don't really care a bit if a person is drugged out, as long as he leaves me alone. Seems like there are already laws that cover burglary/mugging/theft to cover the behavior if a person has to resort to stealing to buy. Dispatch the guy for breaking into your house, but not because he's on drugs.

    USMC, I think I share your perspective with regard to a repeat child molester. There very much is a victim in that case. The question, I think, is whether we've got an interest in keeping these people alive, especially if your friend's date is correct and there is no such thing as rehab for these people.

    The thing in common between the two is contained in MP's name, isn't it? Which is why I hope there's some opportunity to ride the shirt tails of the present lawsuit. I mean, disgust aside, if a convicted sex offender happens to live within 1000 yards of a school bus stop, but minds his/her own business, what violation has taken place, or who has been hurt?

    That's the part that really ticks me off. Walk past a bus stop while packing... and you're subject to arrest? Yep, that ticks me off too.

    Good point on real property ownership, but is that a position we could leverage?

    Does anyone know if there's a chance to join in the lawsuit or offer an amicus brief at this point?

    It would really be kind of ironic to add a carry focused operspective to the ACLU's statement.
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    381
    83
    (1) I am not sure that the mass transit definition would include public school bus stops, but I have made no serious attempt to study the issue.

    (2) I also am not so sure that peeing on the side of the road will land you on the sex offender registry.

    Does anybody know for sure?