<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Sex offender restrictions are the new Jim Crow	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/</link>
	<description>Fighting for registered citizens and families</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:05:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: rwvnral		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-20</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rwvnral]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:28:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=393#comment-20</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-19&quot;&gt;Michael A. Lewis Sr.&lt;/a&gt;.

The law is not retroactive. But don&#039;t be confused by that. The fact that it&#039;s not retroactive merely means that nobody can be charged with a violation of any of its prohibitions if the facts forming the basis of the violation occurred before September 1, 2016. Otherwise, the law absolutely applies to all 7B registrants or anyone whose conviction involved a minor-victim REGARDLESS of when they were placed on the registry. The last section of the statute should be understood to mean that nobody can be charged with or convicted of an offense under the new statute unless the offense (the offense against THIS NEW statute) occurs after September 1.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-19">Michael A. Lewis Sr.</a>.</p>
<p>The law is not retroactive. But don&#8217;t be confused by that. The fact that it&#8217;s not retroactive merely means that nobody can be charged with a violation of any of its prohibitions if the facts forming the basis of the violation occurred before September 1, 2016. Otherwise, the law absolutely applies to all 7B registrants or anyone whose conviction involved a minor-victim REGARDLESS of when they were placed on the registry. The last section of the statute should be understood to mean that nobody can be charged with or convicted of an offense under the new statute unless the offense (the offense against THIS NEW statute) occurs after September 1.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael A. Lewis Sr.		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-19</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael A. Lewis Sr.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=393#comment-19</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have heard that this law is only for convictions on or after September 1 2016 and is NOT retroactive. Is this true?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have heard that this law is only for convictions on or after September 1 2016 and is NOT retroactive. Is this true?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: rwvnral		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-18</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rwvnral]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=393#comment-18</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-17&quot;&gt;Anonymous&lt;/a&gt;.

Please visit and comment as often as you&#039;d like. Short answer, of course, is that none of this protects anyone at all. We&#039;re not convinced that it&#039;s even the intent of the law. More likely, it&#039;s legislation so easy to pass that it&#039;s almost a shame not to...especially since it makes for very easy television advertising. Be prepared to see ads by Sen. &quot;Buck&quot; Newton extolling his herculean effort to protect us from &quot;those dangerous sex offenders.&quot; But he&#039;s really just shooting fish in a small pail. How hard is that? -Admin]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-17">Anonymous</a>.</p>
<p>Please visit and comment as often as you&#8217;d like. Short answer, of course, is that none of this protects anyone at all. We&#8217;re not convinced that it&#8217;s even the intent of the law. More likely, it&#8217;s legislation so easy to pass that it&#8217;s almost a shame not to&#8230;especially since it makes for very easy television advertising. Be prepared to see ads by Sen. &#8220;Buck&#8221; Newton extolling his herculean effort to protect us from &#8220;those dangerous sex offenders.&#8221; But he&#8217;s really just shooting fish in a small pail. How hard is that? -Admin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anonymous		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/08/sex-offender-restrictions-are-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-17</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=393#comment-17</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m sorry for the repeated comments, but these revisions have me irked.  It&#039;s security theater at its finest.  The law now explicitly states I can&#039;t shop at the mall that&#039;s too close to a daycare?  For example - North Duke Crossing in Durham.  It&#039;s where I would go to buy office supplies, dollar store stuff, and Cook Out.  If I was looking for a job, there&#039;s a Staffmasters there.  But because there&#039;s a daycare within 300 feet, according to this law, I can&#039;t go there.  That daycare is across Duke Street - four lanes of traffic plus a turn lane.  HOW DOES THIS PROTECT ANYONE?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry for the repeated comments, but these revisions have me irked.  It&#8217;s security theater at its finest.  The law now explicitly states I can&#8217;t shop at the mall that&#8217;s too close to a daycare?  For example &#8211; North Duke Crossing in Durham.  It&#8217;s where I would go to buy office supplies, dollar store stuff, and Cook Out.  If I was looking for a job, there&#8217;s a Staffmasters there.  But because there&#8217;s a daycare within 300 feet, according to this law, I can&#8217;t go there.  That daycare is across Duke Street &#8211; four lanes of traffic plus a turn lane.  HOW DOES THIS PROTECT ANYONE?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
