You are correct. I am one of them.

It fits to a T what there doing to us and why a Bill of retainer might be a good thing to look into seeing that is is the new trend putting more burdens upon us based on nothing but the need to feel safe

A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National
Page 381 U. S. 438

It’s discouraging future conduct by preventing us from moving there making it essentially a no go zone or a banishment zone. Their stated goal was to make it uninhabitable for Registrants that makes us the targeted sub class instead of the socialist an example. Also “described persons“ makes it blatantly clear that they describe these laws to affect us, and only us thereby singling us out should be more reason of a bill retainer.

@Eugene

All of us have found busloads of evidence that the registry is punishment. The sad fact of the matter is, until the courts pull their heads out of the sand and their fingers out of their ears while humming la la la, we cannot move the mountain and inch.

Even the judges who want to find for us, they seem unwilling to get a lashing from their peers as labeled a sex offender advocate.
They need to take a fresh look at the definition of justice and fairness in the law.

Good article glad you shared

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 381 U. S. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummins v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303. Pp. 381 U. S. 447-449.

f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National
Page 381 U. S. 438

James Madison wrote:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

That did not make sence. What I ment to say was, the Crestview attorney said there are about cities that are going to a larger banishment zone (although he did not use the word banashment). He believes the new ordnance will hold up. The only way we can stop it is to fight it. My wife and I stand ready to do what we can here in Crestview.

DavidM:
Michigan’s 1,000 foot rule was found unconstitutional and was removed from the books. Now registrants can even live across the street from a school, park, etc. in Michigan. They can even work in an elementary school in Michigan. I don’t believe they would ever be hired by a school, but I bet some have worked in schools as private contractors doing carpentry work, etc. What needs to be done is registrants find out why Michigan’s 1,000 foot rule was found to be unconstitutional and try to replicate it in their own state.