Category Archives: 2014 Legislative Session

Loitering on Punk’d

2 Replies

Am I on an episode of punk’d? No, seriously. Am I?
Newly elected State Rep. Sam Moore has introduced legislation that would eliminate the crime of loitering in the State of Georgia, remove circumstances in which citizens would need to identify themselves to law enforcement officers, (as it stands now, you must provide identifying information, even if it is only a first-tier encounter) and also amend circumstances for convicted sex offenders.

1033_A

The problem, which has just about everyone up in arms, is here:
1033Because loitering would no longer be enforceable, law enforcement would be unable to prohibit convicted sex offenders from “hanging” where minors congregate.

This is because the proper time and care of educating and informing the public on WHY the issue is important to Rep. Moore and his cause, and also what the potential ramifications are, were not given. Instead, this bill drops, Moore comes out swinging in defense of his bill and everyone is screaming he hates children.

As a staunch advocate of Liberty and a person who understands the true brokenness of the criminal justice system, this is a terrible, awful, up-to-no good bill– not necessarily because of the intent, but because of the ramifications and because we have now prohibited civil discourse.

Loitering – if not on private property- probably shouldn’t be a crime. It’s harmless for most and generally applies to bored teens in bagging jeans. But how do you handle the sexual registry aspect that pertains to loitering? We argue that parents have a reasonable expectation that their children will be safe when they send them to school. It’s why we hate gun-free zones. It’s why we support armed teachers in schools. If this is an attack on Republicans and conservatives who don’t necessarily support criminal justice system reforms, this is wrong.  If this is an attempt to make Republican colleagues look less conservative, this is wrong. If our goal is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, how do you circumvent the issue of protecting those who cannot protect themselves? I don’t say this often, but I do find this to be one of those special times where perhaps an alternative measure should be implemented, but at a minimum, prepared.

Let’s also talk about the national stage. What happens when someone not familiar with the Georgia Liberty movement, like oh say CNN, picks this and blasts headlines about Republicans in Georgia who want to allow convicted sex  offenders to be around children?  Take a look at the headline from the Cherokee Tribune. Unfortunately, now the environment is too volatile and hostile for the community, and fellow legislators, to have the conversation about this legislation.

Paging the Heartless Conservative

6 Replies

Disclaimer: The following blog is not in defense of current law. I fully understand the concept of disobedience to unjust laws. While reading, please keep in mind that good policy stems from laws that are applied equally and across the board. No law, positive or negative, should target a specific group of people.

Today there is a Judiciary Non-Civil Committee Meeting for House Bill 965, the 911 Medical Amnesty Bill. You can read the bill here, but essentially, HB 965 (which is what I like to call a “heart-string bill”…tug tug) would provide protection against arrest for drug or alcohol-related charges for people who call 911 on behalf of those facing a life-threatening overdose and would in turn allow expanded access to medication used to halt overdose reactions. Representative Sharon Cooper is the primary sponsor of this bill.  Currently, 16 other states (and D.C.) have similar laws and 13 other states are considering 911 Medical Amnesty laws.

I’ll be frank: I don’t like the bill. I don’t particularly care for laws that would help (or hurt) a certain group of people. We call these laws unjust. Similar to Haley’s Hope Act (the medical cannabis legislation), which privileges a very specific group of people with access to a different type of healthcare while excluding a plethora of other diseases, HB 965 limits legal ramifications for those who over-consume. Some may argue that this is because of use and/or possession, not the sale of such drugs. Regardless, this legislation specifically limits legal prosecution of some simply because they used too much of a certain illegal substance.

Proponents of the bill claim that people should not have to choose between death and legal repercussions for their loved ones in the chaos of an overdose. This argument can play for both teams. Certainly one would agree that survival is the first priority, but are we really trying to take the road less traveled to tell friends and family that you didn’t call 911 when you encountered someone who overdosed because you were afraid of the legal ramifications? I’ll also note that if, as conservatives, we value life as much as we claim we do, we shouldn’t use fear of legal ramifications as a driving force for decision making.
I could make the same argument for self-defense. “I was scared to shoot the man rummaging through my home, holding a knife, because it’s illegal to kill someone.” There could be legal repercussions from actions taken in those situations, yet, people still make the choice to defend themselves.
Another argument is that anyone who legally takes opioid medication (like Percocet, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Methadone, Lortab, etc) could benefit from this legislation as well. Unfortunately, this logic is flawed. If someone is prescribed a medication, the likelihood of failing to call 911 over legal ramifications is next to zero. In fact, a large portion of overdose cases from these types of medicines come from legal prescriptions and legal dosage levels.
(Also, point of personal privilege: The word “Amnesty” has horrific connotations due to immigration reform. One would think that conservatives could come up with a better word to use in the title of the bill..yes? no? maybe?)

Now, I understand that many times drug overdoses are directly correlated to addiction and disease, but the role of the legislature is not to enact laws that categorize to what groups of people the law is applicable. Addiction is a sickness and painful for everyone involved but we cannot discredit current laws on the books. We don’t need another feel-good, tug-at-your-heart-strings law. If the law is good for one, it should be good for all and should be applied equally and justly.  Sometimes good intentions make bad policy. This is one of those times.

78% of Georgians are Anti-Second Amendment?

6 Replies

It’s a surprise to absolutely no one by now that campus carry is an issue close to my heart. As a Georgia State University graduate, I believe students deserve better and I feel the state is wrong in hindering their right to protect themselves. Because of this, it irritates me greatly when someone tells me “No one really cares about campus carry” or “It’s just not a hot topic right now”. Oh but it is– in Georgia and across the nation– so you can imagine my confusion upon the release of the AJC poll recently stating 78% of Georgia voters oppose legalizing weapon possession on college campuses. Well, I’ll be darned. I thought this was an interesting tidbit of information so much so that several folks did some investigating and this is what we found.

Let’s discuss by playing the circle game:

  • Jay Bookman is the AJC writer here and polling connoisseur.
  • Bookman’s boss at the AJC is Bert Roughton …the Senior Managing Editor.
  • Mr. Roughton’s wife is a lady named Melinda Ennis Roughton.
  • Mrs. Ennis Roughton holds the ever-so-ironic occupation of Co-Head for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in Atlanta.
  • She is also Executive Director for Georgia’s WIn List, (the Democrat organization looking to elect liberal women to higher offices in Georgia).
  • Georgia WIN will be having their annual Legislative Breakfast on January 30th and the keynote speaker is Jay Bookman.

Now, I am not discrediting the entire poll (which is available here: AJC POLL January 2014) but I do want to consider EXACTLY who was polled.
We’re talking about respondents of which:

  • 41% believe the Georgia economy is not in good shape,
  • 47% believe we should expand Medicare through the ACA,
  • and only 38% of the respondents had children in schools in Georgia.

Nowhere in the poll was the concept of the campus carry act explained: that it would only apply to legal weapons carry permit holders (those over the age of 21 or honorably discharged military)– meaning, people who likely already conceal carry everywhere else in the state.
People uninformed on the issue hear, “Do you want to give college kids guns to take to take to their beer pong matches?” I take great offense to firing off questions (see what I did there) to an uninformed electorate.

I simply can’t help myself in being suspicious of ulterior motives by the AJC here when the reporter et. al is in the sack with the anti-gun lobby and the questions mislead the public. The issue is a Constitutional one….and this poll leads us to believe that 78% of Georgians don’t stand for the Constitution. Again, I am just shocked to my very core that the AJC would seek to mislead.

Constitutional Values? You will rally for these bills…

4 Replies

I’ll keep this short and to the point. The Georgia legislative session has begun and because of the shortened session, the gas pedal is down for legislation. If I were a betting gal, I’d put money on the bad ones getting rammed through while the ones that restore our liberties face a Christie-like traffic jam.

As Constitutional conservatives, bills worth following include the following:

  • HB100 — concerning the Governor’s executive power over firearms and ammunition in a state of emergency. I wrote a full article on this bill, which you can read here. The bill has a substantial number of legislative signers but currently lacks support from the Governor’s office. We’ll keep waiting, but some folks struggle letting go of their own power. If I had to pick *one* piece of legislation to pass this session, it would be this one.
  • HB195 — regarding regionalism. This one is complicated, so if you missed all the articles, catch up here and here.
  • HB25 — a jury nullification bill. If you don’t understand jury nullification, you can read here and see why it’s necessary in a time where our justice system is quite twisted.
  • HB512 — This is a comprehensive gun bill that died on the last day of the 2013 session and included campus carry. In order for this to be considered a “good” bill, two things need to happen: 1) the term “mentally ill” needs to be narrowly defined because as the bill currently stands, those receiving court-mandated counseling and care would not be able to obtain a carry permit (this includes alcohol and drug counseling for people who are convicted of DUI) and 2) the training mandate for students is removed. Don’t mandate me, bro.
    Some are suddenly touting this as a property rights thing. This is only what we’ve been saying for 223 years.
  • HB699 — pertaining to warrantless surveillance by law enforcement and state agencies which also has a complete article detailing the parameters and evils. What I like most about this bill, which I tell you here, is that it actually monetarily charges the people who violate this law.
  • HB 707 — which deals with the Affordable Care Act and essentially nullifies the law in Georgia. There are several arguments that the bill wouldn’t actually do anything other than make a statement to the federal government and could be turned over in court. These are justifiable concerns, but Georgians are waiting for our elected officials to stick up for us and also to show they have courage. This is an opportunity. In addition, it’s an initiative by the People.
  • HB 718 — for raw milk. This is an easy one!! Full article here, but if this doesn’t pass, I will lose all hope for the Georgia legislature. Restoring a simple consumer right should be a quick and painless vote for all Republicans.

Other notable pieces of legislation include:
HB 181 – prohibiting EBT users from using ATMs to obtain cash
HB560 – a drone bill, though I’d rather just see a resolution encouraging dealing with this with other Constitutional rights. Jokes. Sort of.
HB733 – Georgia Religious Liberties Act of 2014 for students in public schools

It’s worth noting that many of these initiatives are not new and are ones many of us have been following for quite some time. If you want to contact your legislators, you can find their contact information here. I also fully support any bill that repeals an existing law. Next week I’ll be posting the bills I would like to see fail…because everyone loves a good hit piece.

Raw Milk Sans Social Unrest

7 Replies

Georgia has a raw milk bill!
Representative Scot Turner (along with co-sponsor Reps Allison, Brockway, Caldwell, and Spencer) filed HB 718 on Monday.
Currently, raw milk is technically not illegal in Georgia but it can only be purchased for animal consumption (pets, livestock, etc) and you can’t sell it. You see what they did there?

If you’ve ever had raw milk, you understand that the consistency is a bit difficult and it smells like cow, but this issue isn’t about flavor. This also isn’t about the gross process of pasteurization and homogenization to get that “safe” gallon you buy ever week. This is about government overstepping it’s bounds and the legislature finally offering a remedy. Currently, we look to an organization that says alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs are “safe” but the possible dangers of raw milk are so horrific, it must be heavily regulated on the state and federal level. So allow me to articulate a few arguments in favor of raw milk:

  • Raw milk is not dangerous for you because you don’t HAVE to drink it. Certainly there is an assumed risk in consuming any type of food/drink, but we cannot fully be “protected” by any government entity. I am allergic to peanuts. They can make me very sick but peanuts are not illegal.
  • On the premise that raw milk should not and will not be illegal, citizens of Georgia should have the freedom to trade, barter, consume, sell and purchase goods and services.
  • If consumers are willing to accept the risk, they should have the freedom to choose what kind of milk they want to drink. Right now, state law forces people to take raw milk to the black market (yes, people, our government over-regulation has taken us to the black market for milk) where the “all or nothing” mentality actually allows more health and safety concerns.
  • The current law criminalizes a behavior that has been legal since the dawn of time. It’s only been in the recent progressive decades of reliance on government to tell us what is and isn’t okay that the raw milk ban has congealed (Again, see what I did there?) People survived for hundreds of years on raw milk.

This issue is about personal responsibility and making your own decisions. If you rally for lower taxes, limited government, and less regulation, raw milk legalization should be on your radar. Don’t be scared. The best thing about raw milk is that if it terrifies you, you can simply get in your vehicle, drive to Publix and purchase the milk of your choice from the grocery. Choices are good. So, we can infer that choosing to support HB718 is an excellent choice if we want more choice and less government interference. 🙂

We teach our kids that if you skip class, you’ll fail…

2 Replies

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the growing trend of unrepresentative and unaccountable regionalism in Georgia. If you missed it, you can catch up by reading this.

Now we move along to part 2, detailing the attendance of such members of this wonderful taxing authority with eminent domain privileges. To properly illustrate such atrocities, I present to you the following graphic:
regionalism2
The number of members on the Atlanta Regional Commission fluctuates with election cycles, appointments and the tide of political relationships but the above chart is not comprehensive of the total board. As noted, it simply details the ARC members who neglect their responsibilities the most.

One of my favorites is the row detailing the attendance of one of regionalism’s biggest proponents– Kasim Reed, who managed to miss at least 50% of the meetings every year (and up to 70% in 2012). You should also note that attendance records aren’t getting any better. While there has been some turnover in ARC membership, there has not been some improvement of attendance.
Anita Thomas of Fulton County missed 4 meetings in 2012. She was only on the board for 4 meetings in 2012. What gives? Some folks missed all the meetings and then stepped off of the board, like Mickey Thompson and Aaron Turpeau. Why bother, folks?

If all of these people are missing all of these meetings, who IS there to do the work? Essentially, because of low attendance to these not-so-public meetings, a few select members –even fewer than the glorious group of self-selected non-elected officials– are making important developmental decisions for all of metro Atlanta. Part 3 [forthcoming] will detail the incestuous occupations of such members of the Atlanta Regional Commission and the direct benefits for each member based on approved developmental projects.

Isn’t regionalism sounding a little more shady with every chart see you see? (See what I did there?)

Electronic Location Tracking: An Opportunity to Limit Warrantless Searches

2 Replies

spying

That pesky Constitution. It really is stirring up some controversy these days and slipping back into legislation across the states.

I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines. We all have. “Cellphone data spying. It’s not just the NSA” and “DC, Maryland and Virginia cops spying on cell phone data” or more recently “Reports: NSA and GCHQ are spying on virtual worlds, gathering data on gamers“. Private entities are speaking out against the measures, too. They’re everywhere. Literally. Every day it seems we wake to another breaking story about privacy infringements and agency tracking tactics with only stagnant blank stares from legislators on the federal level. Frustration ensues but nothing happens.

So I present to you HB699 authored by State Representative John Pezold (R-Columbus). HB699 essentially details “relating to searches with warrants, so as to narrow the circumstances of when location information for electronic devices may be disclosed without a search warrant; to provide for definitions; to provide for exceptions; to provide for a civil penalty and enforcement; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes”. You can read the full text of the bill here, but HB 699 essentially tightens the reins on the out-of control location spying and tracking by law enforcement without a warrant. My favorite part of the bill is the part where it provides punishment parameters for the government entities that violate the statute and allows for suppression of such evidence in court. (I will agree that there is no ‘price’ for our freedoms being compromised but this bill certainly does more to protect our liberties than current practices by law enforcement agencies.)

There is a slight problem, though. As of pre-filing on November 25th, it was a lonely Mr. Pezold and Rep. Scot Turner (R-21) as official signers on the bill.  I find it interesting that a bill like HB41, dealing with water and sewer fees, has more signers than one that strengthens our Constitutional rights and it’s perplexing to me that 1) there aren’t more bills to protect our 4th amendment rights, and 2) that fellow legislators aren’t calling Representative Pezold to help with the initiative. Personally, I want to know where every elected official stands on this, through the House and Senate and up to the Governor. And you should want to know, too. If they don’t support it…primary. It’s time to stop foregoing liberties because “everyone else” is doing it. The justification for “security” that is most often used in these instances is not applicable. A warrant suffices- and they’re not that hard to get, but at least it’s through a process. HB 699 will cease the circumvention of our 4th amendment rights when it comes to location tracking on electronic devices.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already said the use of such devices does constitute a search.  Montana has similar legislation too HB699 and other states have worked to push electronic privacy initiatives, but we’re a long way from where we should be. It’s time for Georgia to step up. Call your legislators. Tell your friends to call their legislators. It matters. It’s not often that we get good bills anymore and HB699 needs support. This bill is a #McWin.

Regionalism: Unrepresentative, Unaccountable and Hardly Elected

4 Replies

After the recent Braves debacle, and yes, regardless of what side you were on, it truly was a debacle, regionalism has once again been brought to the forefront in our state. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand regionalism, if they’ve even heard of it before. They fail to see the unconstitutional premise of the initiative and the failed outcomes stemming from the increased level of bureaucracy and unaccountability.

The concept of regionalism, while the term seems rather self-explanatory, is actually quite complex due to its continuous evolution. Beginning in 1998, legislators began working to formally structure government on a regional level by implementing HB 1650 and establishing a 21-member Regional Advisory Council (RAC) which was refined with different ‘region lines’ the following year. In 2008, the legislature, through HB 1216, again reorganized and divided our state into 12 regions with elected and appointed representatives which were to be limited to one county commission chair and one mayor for from each region. In 2010, this project was expanded by HB 277 to include another 12 regional transportation councils which would have taxing authority and eminent domain privileges and a self-selected executive round table. In addition, a citizen review panel is appointed for each region, yet they have little authority to control the actions of the councils or roundtable. The Atlanta Regional Commission, known as ARC, was created on the premise of uniting 10 metro counties and is now the trailblazer for many of the tragic development projects we hear about every year in Georgia and dates back to 1947 but has evolved significantly since.

Arc.2013Sure is pretty, isn’t it?

It’s true that most people support counties working together and it’s true that most counties enjoy ‘sharing’ costs. It’s also true that many voters want to see their elected officials working as zealous advocates for their communities. But most wouldn’t support the concept if they knew it was mandated and involuntary. Counties are forced to work together to support initiatives and share funds that may never offer any benefit to their citizens or businesses. Essentially, regionalism reduces local control, circumvents the Georgia Constitution (Article IV, Section IV), reduces (and sometimes eliminates) transparency, diminishes accountability, redistributes wealth, creates an unnecessary [4th] level of bureaucracy and applies a one-size-fits-all approach to development that allows appointed members of a board to evade the whole ‘representative’ aspect of governing. Elected officials bring in vested ‘friends’ as appointees and the commission quickly becomes a one-way (light-rail, of course) train headed to Spendersville at our expense.

“We have a significant number of “citizen” members on the ARC Board who have absolutely no accountability to the voting public at all,” says Fayette County Commission Chairman Steve Brown. “The thought of a mandated regional governance and taxation structure producing the likes of the regional T-SPLOST and Concept 3, by unanimous votes, no less, is a worrisome proposition.”

Regionalism isn’t all that popular, either- mostly because Georgia cannot execute the necessary engines, if you will, correctly. Maria Saporta of Maria’s Metro (who is very pro-transportation spending) recently said, “Regionalism is about investing in regional assets that serve the entire 10-county or 20-county region”. While this, like most things, sounds like a sound solution to so many local problems, regionalism requires county participation and an intermixing of funds that most taxpayers don’t even know about. It allows governance by an unelected, unchecked board with no recourse for voters, citizens or taxpayers.

Earlier this year, the GA GOP voted in favor of a resolution rejecting regionalism as a whole and supporting legislation that would repeal applicable measures. Americans for Prosperity has shed a critical light on issues surrounding regionalism and their own Matt Roy summed up an exemplary explanatory article asking, “When has more or bigger government resulted in an efficient outcome?”

Proposed remedies are lacking. Representative Ed Setzler currently has HB 195 in the hopper, which allows regionally cohesive projects without the mandate by allowing forthcoming initiatives to be at the discretion of the voters in the affected counties. Cooperation would no longer be mandatory, and elected officials would again be accountable to the people who elected them to work on projects that are in the best interest of their area. Wouldn’t that have been nice with the Braves stadium? And wasn’t that a more representative way to decide the fate of the T-SPLOST?

We don’t need regionalism. We see often why these things don’t work. A government close to home is the most effective, the most accessible and the most responsive. It’s the same reason the states don’t team up by region to accomplish things. Cooperation isn’t a bad thing and as Andre Jackson of the AJC stated, “Such cooperation where it’s mutually desired is in keeping with current best practices”. Arranged marriages are nice, but everyone usually ends up happier when you get to pick your own spouse.

A Picture Worth 1,000 Words/Dollars/Haters

Leave a reply

photodogs(A puppy mug shot, because they really are guilty)

Something I’ve struggled with a for a long time? Internet mug shots.

Over the last few years, the explosion of private companies posting mug shots on the internet has been devastating for almost every one who has been arrested. These companies post your ever-so-flattering photo with your charges with the only remedy being your contacting them to have it removed by paying a fee. Problem is, there are handfuls of companies doing this, making a fortune and the cost of ‘clearing your name’ can end up costing thousands of dollars. Another problem arising from this ‘public information’ is the name recognition on Google. An employer searches your name, your photo comes up with charges, yet the charges were dismissed/nolle prosequi/dead docketed, and suddenly it looks as if you lied. (I recognize there are plenty of arguments regarding pending charges and disclosing that in a job interview but most applications inquire about convictions. I also recognize that some counties make their court calendars available online, but this usually doesn’t come up on Google)

When I worked at the Capitol, we received call after call asking for legislation banning the companies that do this and/or help in rectifying false information. At first, I thought it was pretty crappy on the part of the company, and maybe it is, but the Liberty in me says there is nothing you can do. Is this a path we want to start walking down? Banning entrepreneurial companies? The idea is brilliant and a perpetual gold mine. When folks are desperate to get those photos down, they’re going to pay whatever is necessary. Especially those folks who weren’t convicted.

So here is where I’m at now:

  •  We do not need any more legislation, mostly because the issue does not stem from the companies. It’s coming from the police agencies
  • I’m all for public knowledge and private entities. After all, it is public information and it’s often times printed in the paper (but I’m not really on board with that concept either). Do we REALLY need mug shots of pending charges? I understand that companies will remove the photo, however, we are circumventing the whole ‘presumption of innocence’ thing.
  • We are supposed to operate under the notion that you are ‘innocent until proven guilty’, so why are we exploiting people’s charges and photos when things are still in the “allegations” stage? Why are we not pressuring law enforcement agencies to only publish records of the ‘guilty’ ones. There’s a reason the Sex Offender Registry is just for the convicted folks. (#liability)

I don’t want restriction or regulation, I just want to see our police agencies focus on punishing those who are convicted of a crime instead of tarnishing those who have the unfortunate privilege of wading through the justice system. Everyone knows someone who has been a victim of our legal process so we can’t say these things are rare occurrences. I am real tired of people associating charges with guilt. And most of them won’t change their mind unless they are under the gun (pun intended) and charged with a crime they did not commit.