A few questions for these legislators:

Has there ever been an instance where a sex offender harmed a child waiting at a bus stop near his/her home?
Could someone who is NOT a sex offender pose a risk to a child waiting at a bus stop?

And this regarding Sen. Schaefer's bill: "The bill would also require lifetime supervision of child sex offenders and prohibit granting probation to pedophiles."

Does this mean that the state of Missouri will have to determine whether anyone sentenced to probation, regardless of the charge, is a pedophile?

In regard to State Rep. Sonya Anderson, facts do not matter. She is up for reelection in November 2016, and we all know this means its time to roll out the Bills for votes because its politically popular to hate SO's.

As for Senator Kurt Schaefer the language of "The bill would also require lifetime supervision of child sex offenders and prohibit granting probation to pedophiles" suggest this is two different things because of the word "and" in language:

One being lifetime registration for sex offenders, which means overriding other laws that permit an SO to petition the court to get off the registry, and to prevent automatic removal from the registry. This, of course, means retroactively applying the law yet once again, against sex offenders in Missouri since we don't much care about what our state Constitution has to say.

The other being to prohibit probation for pedophiles. This is targeted at those convicted of sex offenses who undergo the so-called 120-day Sex Offender Assessment Unit, and then receiving probation as long as the person does not have a mental illness, in which case, the state contract with the mental health provider mandates an automatic recommendation to the court to deny probation.

500 MILES?!?!?! Is that even possible?? I don't know if there is any where in the state that would be 500 MILES from a bus stop.

I wonder if SO's would be forced to move. Right now they don't have to move away from schools and parks if they lived there before being arrested or before the school or park was placed there.

Sorry, I meant 500 feet, as the news article cites.

Would this 500 feet rule apply for all levels or levels 3 & 4?
I fear ARK will go this route as well.

Missouri, that I know of, does not yet use a level system.

Sorry, that makes much more sense. I'm tired (working 11+ hours a day/6 days a week), so I hadn't clicked on the link. Do you think MO will actually make SO's move or will some be grandfathered in if they were in place before the bill was signed? There is a bus stop at the end of our driveway basically, but we have lived here for 15+ years and own it free and clear. Could they really make us move?

Kali,

Since you owned the property prior to this new law----if it is enacted----I doubt that Missouri will try to make you move. If they do, you could probably prevail in court.

Every state handles these restrictions differently.

In some states, a registrant is grandfathered in if he lived at the residence before the law was passed; he can still live within the prohibited area even after the law is enacted. But, a few states will force the registrant to move if a park or other child friendly entity is built or placed there; I supposed this would also apply to bus stops.

BUT if a person owned his own home and property before the law was passed, I doubt that they can force him to move.

There has already been a court case in the registrants' favor. In Mann vs Georgia Department of Corrections, the court ruled that a registrant cannot be forced to move from property he owned before the restrictions were passed. They ruled that forcing a person to move under these circumstances would be a violation of the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment.

Here is the text----

""The Georgia Supreme Court tossed out the state's restrictions on where sex offenders can live, if they own the property, saying it is unconstitutional to force them to relocate because a child care facility, school, church later opens up nearby.""

Now, granted the state of Georgia is not the state of Missouri and a bus stop is not a child care facility, school, or church; but the same reasoning would apply in Missouri if a bus stop was included in the group of prohibited areas where sex offenders cannot live and they attempted to force a home owner---the registrant--- to move.

As a result, I doubt that Missouri wants to risk the litigation which will follow if they attempt to force a registrant to move if he owned the property prior to the bus stops being becoming prohibited areas. In Oklahoma, they changed the law a few years ago to avoid this type of scenario, in which a registrant who owned property was forced to move; their reasoning was that they did not want to deal with law suits.

rewdiazepam

BTW, it appears the Missouri is the new Florida.

Here is a link to the Georgia case-----

http://tinyurl.com/gnx7t37

Here is the Takings Clause taken from the Fifth Amendment----

""nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.""

rewdiazepam

Presently what the media is reporting and what is in the Bill are two different things.

The actual Bill gives an alternative: If a school cannot relocate a school bus stop 500 feet away from where a SO lives, then school officials are to give written notice to all parents of school children living in the immediate area of the SO, so they are aware.

That said:

Given the climate of our right wing Republican held house and senate in Missouri who spare no hesitation to go after sex offenders, I do think it is possible for the Bill to be amended to force SO's to move from their residence rather than moving the school bus stop.

Insofar as whether there will be a grandfather clause in the final Bill, if it is enacted into law, that depends on what is passed into law. However, in my speaking with one Republican legislator, if such a grandfather clause is built in, it would likely only cover an SO if and only if the SO himself or herself owns the house. If the house is not in their name and owned, then it is entirely possible they could be forced to vacate the property even if it is their spouse whose name is on the house deed.

One issue I take with such grandfather clauses is that it forces already low-income SO's to move if they are renters rather than owners of the property. It costs a great deal of money to relocate to a new place to live, and this disenfranchises the low-income because they are not lucky enough to own their own home.

I also spoke with the assistant of the Bill that is presently filed, and let it be known that this Bill is premised entirely upon hate, fear, and hypothetical guesses in the dark because there is not one single case in Missouri showing that any SO has taken advantage of a child being at a school bus stop in front of their house, to commit a sex crime.

I also make myself clear in both my phone call and email that maybe instead of lawmakers filing and passing laws that encourage parents to be lazy in supervising their children, they would do better in filing and passing laws that actually do something -- like requiring schools to host a daycare for parents who have to be to work before school opens, and, thus, can drop their child off at school before it starts so the child is safe and properly supervised instead of standing out at some school bus stop alone.

I get sick of these feel good laws that give a false sense of safety and encourage and condone parents being lazy in supervising their children so politicians can score points and get votes when its time for them to be reelected into office.

I would suggest that you and everyone else you know begin to write letters, emails to the senate committees involved, make phone calls voicing opposition. The louder your voices the better. It is time to stand strong and fight back.

Is WAR and the National RSOL organizations going to mobilize members to call the elected officials in MO and send emails and letters? I understand that WAR is in MO. There will be an opportunity to speak to the national presidential campaigns about this issue. Sec. Clinton's camp will be holding a woman to woman phone conference in St. Louis on March 4. Someone, anyone in MO should participate in this call. There will be actual MO legislators participating. Here's a link to the event: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/view/1819739/

It is time to be involved and fight back. Someone from Missouri needs to make contact with both of these organizations. Get the listing of the committee members and go from there. The facts are on our side not theirs. A phone call is a great idea to the Hillaryclinton.com event. Check out what the California Sex Reform group is doing to fight against the injustices against Registrants. Let your voices be heard. We all need to unite, stand strong and fight back.