7th Circuit ruling will force registered sex offenders from homes

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    • #43431 Reply

      Larry Neely

      By Larry . . . NARSOL is disappointed to report that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision affirming a lower co
      [See the full post at: 7th Circuit ruling will force registered sex offenders from homes]

    • #43458 Reply


      Ref: Footnote 6, p.13 of opinion. Would it have helped if they had developed an argument that it is facially unconstitutional under the takings clause ?

    • #43523 Reply


      Larry, now your getting to some of the heart of the matter in all this. or should we say police are getting to their logical part of the matter. Larry it does seem that people want to justify themselves, in other words people don’t want to be wrong, it lowers there self-esteem. Did Einstein always want to be right? Well he was wrong several times. Sure if I was caught in the act I would be caught in the act of stealing. Now we all are talking about sex registry situation. Yes monthers are against their child getting molested.

      What that child does is up to their mentality. It seems law enforcment want to excute wrath but at the same time they show no mercy. You talked about a “raational basis test”. I sort of doubt if that test has any logic to it. Sure I can give you a reason as are we all not carnal but courts want to make waves. I’m sure we can all understand safety but can we understand each persons thought or intent or does someone have to provide the opportunity or flip a coin to see who takes that person to jail for driving over the speed limit. I would say rationally two wrongs don’t make a right when government is above the right if that makes it rational.

    • #43682 Reply


      I wonder if the lawyers pushing this case used the 6th Circuit ruling against Michigan’s retroactive application of the S.O.R. and it’s ever-increasing list of debilitating restrictions? If so, we have a split circuit and the S.C.O.T.U.S. needs to weigh in, although I’m reticent about a fair hearing in the Trump era.

      Rational Basis is just the court’s nice way of saying, “Do what you want to these people. I don’t give a crap about this segment of society. To hell with ’em for all I care!!”

    • #43686 Reply


      If RETROACTIVELY forcing a man out of his home and away from his family isn’t cruel and unusual punishment, then the term needs to be struck from American jurisprudence altogether.

      Our country is so full of two-faced hypocrites. No one is screaming or protesting in outrage when AMERICAN families are torn apart in this manner. Don’t you think that registrants have kids who love and need and want BOTH parents just the same as any other non-offender’s kids???? Everyone is ready to grab torches and pitchforks over the separation of illegal aliens, but not a word for how the laws under guise of “civil regulation” decimate no telling how many AMERICAN families all because one or the other committed a sex crime.

    • #43687 Reply


      “The Takings Clause claim was unexhausted in the state courts and the amendment was adopted before they acquired their homes, so it did not alter their property-rights expectations.”

      I have a question about the kinds of lawyers taking our cases:

      (1) Do they not have enough sense to know on what grounds their challenges would most likely fail? Lawyers are supposed to know the law, but somehow there are gaping holes in their arguments that give the court all the wiggle room they need to shoot these cases down cold. I’ve read that a poorly-developed challenge can poison the well for others who may come after them because a ruling on the issue has been made.

      Are the courts knowingly and maliciously moving the goal post in these cases so that those of us who challenge these punitive sex offender laws can never get a significant enough victory to stake them through the heart once and for all? Are our “honorable” judges honorable in the least?? I almost puke when I hear any judge referred to as “the honorable”.

      • #46515 Reply


        Sadly, justice in America is just another commodity. The quality is based on how much your lawyer is paid. If enough, he/she can bribe the judge and needed oaficials for a favorable ruling. America bemoans other countries for judicial corruption, but wallows in it itself.

    • #44037 Reply

      james mayfield

      I sure hope that this ruling will be struck down in near future i would hate to see a slippery slope of retroactive laws being passed in other states where anyone on registry will have to move out of their residence. https://ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/AdultSexOffenderManagement.pdf // Black and white by our own Dept of Justice that residency restrictions are counterproductive so how can a lower court go against the reccomendations of a higher branch of government? I’m pretty ignorant of legal terms but i suppose i can start to memorize the jargon to educate myself on all this nonsensical laws being passed regarding registered citizens.

    • #44322 Reply

      Tim L

      The 7th circuit is in Illinois correct?
      Here in Wisconsin we have a term for Illinois drivers who frequent our “up north” areas on the weekends. FIBs or Fu%$ing Illi@#$ Bastards drive like their in Chicago cutting people off. So I’m not surprised to hear about this property issue cause they are nutz. They were the first state in the nation to ban child sex offenders from owning property near schools. Those who already owned land conflicting with the law were not included in the first Megan’s law variant, but I knew it would eventually. Illinois opted to administer SOR via the STATE Police who behave like union thugs. The state is in serious financial trouble so property taking could be useful to some.

      So far SCOTUS has left the determination of the rule of state law to state Supreme court’s save N.C. Packingham. It will be interesting to see if it gets review.

    • #46749 Reply


      The bottom line here is when the court gets it wrong there must be a substantial penalty to the state(s) that they preside over. If you cannot sue when they get it wrong then there is no fear or reason to be cautious nor to follow the constitution.

    • #52336 Reply


      I know the registry is unconstitutional
      So that needs to be dealt with so we dont have to talk about the 7th circuit
      Court ruling that should of never forced
      Anyone out of there home.

    • #60809 Reply

      Josh M

      When the guilty party molested a minor, they made a choice which they now have to live with. The choices we make have consequences. If a school opens up within 500 feet the guilty party 100% should have to move out. That is the consequence of being a child molester, you no longer have the same freedoms that everyone else has.

      Additionally, let’s stop feeling bad for the abuser and take a second to think about the victim.

      For the sake of the conversation, say that they stayed in their home which is now within 500 feet of a school and molests a child, who would like to tell that child and their family that this could have been easily prevented?

    • #67162 Reply


      What if the “offender” is on the “List” because he or she simply viewed child porn on the internet and had no intent or notion of ever actively harm any child?
      Should that offender be deprived of his/her Constitutional Rights for Life? I think not. Anywhere an “offender” goes/resides in Illinois anyone can open a home based daycare and the “offender” is then removed from his/her home and probably Family, and they have this hanging over their heads for LIFE!
      Also, in Illinois, municipalities can change residential restrictions at will with many changing the States 500ft Residential restriction to 1,500ft or more. At this rate “offenders” will be restricted from residing within two States of a school, park, day care, etc., etc., etc.

    • #67348 Reply

      Ed C

      Josh, you might have a point IF states engaged in some sort of individualized risk assessment. The problem is that they don’t. Rather states apply an extremely broad categorical approach, which is stupid but easy. Given the overwhelming data regarding low sexual recidivism and that most (93%) of child abuse offenses are perpetrated by family members or close acquaintances, such broad restrictions make absolutely no sense.

      I personally have little hope that sex offense laws will be created thoughtfully. No politician has ever been elected by running on a campaign of being “rational on crime.” The general formula is to incite fear and then claim to be the protector of society. Even a casual review of history or current events shows that pattern.


Viewing 12 reply threads
Reply To: 7th Circuit ruling will force registered sex offenders from homes
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">