CA: From Public Service to Public Ban? Fresno’s Plan Could Shut the Doors of City Hall on All Registrants
It’s hard to believe how far Fresno has drifted from common sense to outright overreach with its latest plan to block a community member from public service. City leaders are now pushing a proposed ordinance aimed specifically at preventing a registered sex offender from entering city buildings like City Hall, police and fire stations.
Let’s be clear: protecting children and ensuring safe public spaces are vital. But the idea that children regularly hang out in City Hall or that being in these secure, adult-oriented government buildings represents some unique risk is a stretch at best. City Hall, police stations, and fire stations are professional environments with far more security and oversight than most facilities. Using “public safety” as a justification for blocking an entire population from public access is unconstitutional and unconscionable.
What’s truly concerning here is that this is disenfranchisement. State law already allows a registered person to run for office unless they are legally disqualified for other reasons, and voters, not lawmakers, should decide who is worthy of their representation. Yet some Fresno councilmembers are now trying to legislate someone out of eligibility. That’s not about protecting the public; it’s about picking winners and losers in our democracy.
This kind of targeted legislation sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow city councils to craft laws aimed at specific individuals, where does it stop? Isn’t rigging elections a huge concern in our country right now?
We’re not in California, but FAC certainly hopes that Fresno’s actions open the door for groups like ACSOL to expose the city’s motivation and use it against lawmakers in legal challenges across the state. Just one more piece of evidence showing that the registry is not about public safety!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wait a minute. Don’t some places ban registrants from entering public shelters during a weather emergency, and require them to shelter in a jail? It wouldn’t surprise me if Fresno was one of them.
The Servitude For civil compliance
Written by Quiet too long 02/28/2026
The debate over whether a registrant should be allowed to run for office cannot be separated from the deeper constitutional contradiction built into the system itself. A person on the registry is forced to live under a civil label, yet the obligations placed on them resemble a form of permanent civil servitude: they must navigate 50 different sets of rules—each vague, inconsistent, and constantly shifting—where even an honest mistake can result in felony charges. That means a registrant must perform continuous, high‑stakes compliance labor simply to exist, tracking residency rules, reporting requirements, travel restrictions, and local ordinances that change from county to county. No other civil status in America requires this level of unending, compulsory effort. And while the state demands this labor, it simultaneously denies the same person equal access to housing, shelters, public institutions, and civic participation. This is the definition of a caste: a group required to serve the state but not fully protected by it. Equal Protection does not allow the government to single out one group by a past label and then deny them political participation while allowing all other citizens with past convictions to run. Once someone has completed their sentence, continuing to exclude them from public office turns a civil status into a punitive one. Under the Supreme Court’s own tests, a civil scheme becomes punitive when it imposes affirmative restraints, mirrors historical punishments, is excessive, and functions as retribution—and the registry meets all of those markers. The Due Process problem is equally serious: a civil system that imposes felony consequences for failing to decode vague, contradictory rules is not civil at all. What makes this even more troubling is that the bias is no longer contained to the registry itself. The public remarks by the Fresno councilmembers—expressing “disturbance” at a legally eligible candidate and openly discussing legislation to block him—show that the stigma has spread into the broader political culture. When elected officials treat a civil status as a moral disqualification, it proves the system has moved beyond regulation and into the realm of social exclusion. A government cannot demand taxes, compliance, and obedience from a person while treating them as a political outsider. “No taxation without representation” is not just a slogan; it is a constitutional principle. If someone has paid their debt, they should be restored to the full rights of citizenship, including the right to run for office. Anything less is not regulation—it is a permanent civil disability imposed on a single class of people, reinforced not only by law but now by public officials themselves.
Disclaimer: This is a general constitutional observation, not legal advice. Individuals should consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance.
your absolutely correct, but who tells the USA government it’s breaking its own laws? doesn’t pay to be right when the government is wrong..
Sounds like they are setting up for a Constitutional beatdown. If it succeeds, there must be in place tiers of citizens, too, those who are second-class, and presumably would not have to pay any taxes, for example, because they are denied services, and those who must pay a premium. Seems fair…
A ban from City Hall would be easy and fun to defeat. FAC members have already demonstrated this.
Correct, Jacob. We did it in Brevard and are about to do it again in Union.
Also, Florida has the Goverment in the Sunshine Law, so all state action that took place while the Union Ordinance was in place is subject to being repealed. Plus, if we prevail, the County gets hit with covering the legal fees.
Wait, what? A police department is one of the most secure places in any city. For God’s sake, do they think someone is going to commit a sex crime in a police department? One of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life.
I could “somewhat” see city hall being banned, but Police and fire stations are supposed to be safe and welcomed places. How is banning from a police station but allowed to go to Walmart and use the bathroom safer? I think a few law makers just dream up some of the dumbest proposals, throwing crap at the wall and hoping it will stick.
There are a few other words I could say about this subject, but I would have to wash my mouth out with soap afterwards.
Banning City Hall prevents one from attending city council meetings which are protected by the constitution to attend.
TS
I will get yelled at I am sure but, the constitution is just a piece of paper written by men in the past. It means NOTHING, until acted on and upheld. Otherwise, NONE of us would be on a registry. We say the registry is un-constitutional, but that piece of paper cannot defend us unless a judge makes it so.
With the wave of a magic wand, we are declared broken vessels that cannot be fixed. If being banned from the city hall is un-constitutional, why isn’t the registry itself? Pick and choose which laws to uphold.
The truth sometimes hurts.
The truth hurts but as you so we’ll put it the truth is still the truth. When Epstein island horror show includes the President that signed the Megan’s law and so many other high ranking officials it is painfully clear the paper constitution is nothing but toilet fodder. The only way the registry would ever end is if all the elites were truly brought into the exact same justice they decree for us.
They had Evidence on Epstein and Maxwell. Those two were either prosecuted or in the process of being prosecuted.
“obvious answers”, that being said there still has not been shown any proof that the POTUS was involved in or knew about Epstein’s alleged crimes. No I am not a fan of Epstein and I will NOT state where I stand politically however the PFR Community is branded as guilty of continuously stalking and attacking children. They have no evidence to support these allegations and the damage is being done.
Until there is evidence of illegal activity that can be proven in court I would advise restraint on spreading allegations. If we spread false or unprovable allegations and news we would be hypocrites when we complain that it is being done to us.
Quite simply an accusation is often times a conviction in the public eye especially with sex crimes. We have the registry requirements because of many false allegations that were presented as facts. We are fighting the false narrative and it is a hard fight. Please don’t feed into the hysteria that helps to drive the lies that add more punishments to us.
I agree with you @Cherokee Jack. They keep wanting both ways when it comes to the topic at hand. I have been long not impressed with the legal system and its administrators in this country.
It is complete abuse if you ask me.