rebelfighter: my opinion is they do not belong in field service
There are lots of people who share your opinion, rebelfighter.
Lousiana has recently passed new laws concerning the door to door activities of sex offenders:
SEX OFFENDERS
Convicted sex offenders in Louisiana won’t be able to solicit door to door for any kind of business, adding to a long list of restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from driving a bus or taxi or working in an industry that requires going into someone’s home.
Violators of the door-to-door sales ban will face prison sentences from five to 10 years.
In addition, the public will now have limited access to email addresses and online screen names of registered sex offenders, a law aimed at helping parents keep their children away from possible predators when they play video games or participate in other online activities.
And, according to Texas:
http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/PeddlersQAUpdated-09%202010.pdf
Q: May cities prohibit sex offenders from receiving a peddler, solicitor, or
canvasser license?
A: Probably so. A general law city possesses those powers and privileges that the
State expressly confers upon it. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146
S.W.3d 637, 645 (Tex. 2004); Op. Tex. Atty. Gen. No. GA-0526 (2007). General law
cities have been granted specific authority to “license, tax, suppress, prevent, or otherwise regulate” peddlers, which should include preventing a sex offender from receiving a peddler license. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 215.031. Additionally, both general law and home rule cities have been granted broad authority by the State’s police power for the protection of the public, which should authorize the prohibition of sex offenders receiving peddler, solicitor, or canvasser licenses. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 54.001, 54.004; City of Dallas v. Smith, 107 S.W.2d 872, 874-75 (1937). The Legislature has not, with “unmistakable clarity,” preempted the licensing of sex offenders as peddlers, solicitors, or canvassers from a home rule city’s broad powers. See Op. Tex. Atty. Gen. No. GA-0526 (2007); Dallas Merchant’s & Concessionaire’s Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 852 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. 1993).Similar reasoning suggests that Texas cities may protect residents by
prohibiting sex offenders from receiving licenses that permit close contact with the
public, especially on private property.The Supreme Court also noted that the ordinance was founded on fact. North Carolina’s Legislature had formally found that “sex offenders often pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders is of paramount governmental interest.” Id., citing N.C. GEN. STAT.. § 14-208.5 (2007). The North Carolina Supreme Court also cited a report that stated “released sex offenders are four times more likely to be rearrested for subsequent sex crimes than other released offenders.” Id., citing Patrick A. Langan, et al., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, at 1 (2003). The danger of sex offenders has also been discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003); McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32-
33 (2002) (plurality).