Will the law ge enforced against "enabling" car rental agencies?

What a horrible burden on the offender's family.  

States identify different offenses as sex crimes, making the sticker completely arbitrary.  

For instance,until a couple of years ago, a non-custodial parent in Oklahoma who kidnapped her/his child from the custodial parent was required to register as a sex offender.  Prostitutes and their clients are still statutory sex offenders and must register as such.  Indecent exposure is a sex crime here, rendering an unconscionably large number of homeless persons without access to restrooms as sex offenders.  

Will thiefs have to wear little lone ranger racoon masks after they get out of prison so we'll all know to lock up our houses?

Will car accident victims have to attach an arrow pointing down that says "Bad Driver" on top of their cars so that we'll all know to get out of their way?

that being the case, it would seem reasonable, following the logic of sex offender registries, that all ex-cons be required to register, and have some kind of obvious identifying markings on themselves, their residences and their vehicles.

If it could be proven that the measure advances public safety, it could be justifiable in part, perhaps.  If it does not advance public safety, it would be unconstitutional.  If the advancement of public safety is minimal compared to the harm to former offenders, it would still be unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

In one place, some very bored prosecutor and/or sheriff's deputy might work at arranging to have me convicted, and so I have a natural sympathy for those who have been convicted.  And, a bunch of these child sex offenders may have done nothing wrong other than have consensual sex with a girlfriend or boyfriend.  I just read about the actor in Britain who had a 15-year-old girlfriend and she wanted to have sex.  They had anal sex a few times and it later came to the attention of the authorities, and so he was prosecuted and convicted.  

Now, I don't particular recommend anal sex to persons, but it seems she likely suffered no harm; how is it just to prosecute him?  

The state is requiring its residents who go out of state to have a green sticker.  That seems to me to be unconstitutional.  (For the action does seems more punitive towards them, than advancing public safety in the other states.)  Also, if it could be proven that the measure did not advance public safety, then one could and should make the argument that the measure as a whole is cruel and unusual punishment.  The reason is that it would, for no good reason, place every "offender" at great risk of vigilante "justice."  

Someone made a good point about harm to the family members, the support system that every legislator refuses to think about.  These persons are simply referred to as "collateral damage".  Families are suffering in Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, and the list goes one.

Good points in many of the comments.  Ex post facto is literally slaughtered in most of these laws but the stigma is so ingrained, most attorneys do not want to take on the cases.

The sad thing....many of these so called offenders have had no physical contact with anyone, i.e. caught up the online chat room stings...I'm not referring to those who travel, but those who merely type words on a screen.

And the illegal use of the sting operation is an entirely different area that law enforcement has taken to an extreme.

Follow the money trail on this sex offender stuff...the more offenders on the registry, the more federal dollars given to the state.  Quite the incentive.

This is a great link I recently received from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS.  Interesting reading.

http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/issues/sexoffender_attachments/$FILE/SexOffenderPolicy.pdf

I. NACDL opposes the death penalty as a sanction for sex offenders.

II. NACDL opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

II. NACDL opposes sex offender registration and public notification laws. If employed at all, sex
offender registries should classify sex offenders on the basis of risk, with full due process of law.
Public/community notification provisions should be reserved for "High Risk" sex offenders.

IV. NACDL opposes civil commitment laws because they punish offenders who have paid their
debt to society. If employed at all, sex offender civil commitment statutes should provide a full
panoply of due process rights including the right to a jury trial, the right to confront adverse
witnesses, the right to present evidence, rules of evidence, a high burden of proof on the government
and a process for review and discharge which levels the burden squarely on the government.

V. NACDL opposes residence restrictions because such laws and ordinances do not provide
effective community protection and threaten offender stability and reintegration into society.