ACLU opposes sex offender ban in city parks; ignores illegal CHL ban

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that two Ohio municipalities have enacted bans on sex offenders in public parks, and that the ACLU is none-too happy about it.

From the story:

No dogs. No ball playing. No skateboarding. And now no sex offenders allowed in Brook Park's city parks.

The Cleveland suburb earlier this month became perhaps only the second community in Ohio to ban registered sex offenders from city parks and recreation centers.

Cuyahoga Falls banned sex offenders from city parks in June.

The story goes on to say that the ACLU of Ohio is looking into a constitutional challenge to the ban.

Kevin O'Neill, a law professor at Cleveland State University and former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the Brook Park and Cuyahoga Falls laws raise several constitutional issues.

The new laws might be challenged on the basis that they restrict freedom of movement or that they deny equal protection in that such laws single out convicted sex offenders for separate treatment even after they've served their time.

Why is it that the ACLU is so willing to defend the rights of convicted sex offenders, and so absolutely unwilling to defend the rights of law-abiding Ohio concealed handgun license-holder who wants to take a jog on a secluded park trail without having to disarm (thereby giving those same sex offenders an easier target)?

Why is the ACLU so willing to look the other way when certain city governments in Ohio enforce what amounts to a ban on self-defense in a public park, especially when Ohio law so clearly prohibits a ban on concealed carry in these places, and when the Ohio Attorney General has intervened in a lawsuit arguing same?