Find out more about Georgia's government at congress.org State legislature page State Constitution Secretary of State website

Ike Hall [Message] Interim state coordinator 1266 Pounds Lane Clarkston, GA 30021

BREAKING NEWS: Click here to find out what we're doing for Audit the Fed Mass Action Day in Georgia!

Welcome to Georgia!

The State of Georgia is comprised of 13 Congressional Districts (see sidebar) and 3274 precincts. As one of the original 13 colonies, Georgia sent a delegation to the 2nd Continental Congress for the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Georgia ratified the U.S. Constitution on January 2, 1788, becoming the fourth state to do so.

Political Parties

• Constitution Party of Georgia
• Democratic Party of Georgia
  • Young Democrats of Georgia
• Libertarian Party of Georgia
• Republican Party of Georgia
  • Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia
  • Young Republicans of Georgia

Grassroots Organizations

• Civil Liberty Organizations
  • ACLU of Georgia
  • Georgia Carry
  • Georgia Firearm Owners Defense League
  • GeorgiaPacking.org
• Education Freedom Organizations
  • Georgia Home Education Association
• Economics Organizations
  • Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Members may wish to join the following:

Mailing list: campaignforliberty-ga

Facebook: Campaign for Liberty - Georgia

One year later: Gold and The Constitutional Tender Act Posted by Break your chains

Posted 01/27/10 Last updated 01/27/10

 I'll start out with this disclaimer: I am not an economist. I'm an "average Joe," who has an avid interest in Austrian economics, and knows the basic essential rule of Economics: Supply and Demand. Most of what I write here is just my thoughts, and is purely based on some trends I've noticed. For that matter, if you agree or disagree, I'd like to hear your comments so that I can better understand what the hell is going on. I'd also like to know if, had the Constitutional Tender Act been implemented, A) would we be in a better position today than a year ago? B) would it been about the same? (no harm, no foul), or C), would things be worse? Any and all criticism, accolade, and/or input is welcome.

 We can safely suspect that over the past few years there's been a drastic increase of the supply of U.S. Dollars flowed into the markets (even without an audit of the Fed, we know they're up to no good), and I suspect that there is a great amount of money currently sitting in bank vaults waiting to be loaned out and further circulated into the economy (which, when eventually loaned out, will quicken the realization of inflation). We've seen a change in attitude among many Americans that spending during a recession is not a solution towards recovery, but rather that saving is the most responsible way to bring about a stronger economy (despite the fact that our government is near to forcing us to go out and borrow, consume, and repeat). I know little about the various details associated with economics, but I, like many others here at the Campaign for Liberty and students of Mises, know that you cannot double the supply of phoney money in circulation and expect there not to be a very real drop in our currency's value. In that regard, we know more than the Federal Reserve's board of governors, who are crossing their fingers and hoping that they can keep the rate of inflation/deflation in check indefinitely (which, looking to the history of Germany's Weimar Republic, they certainly have their work cut out for them).

 During Georgia's last legislative session, a few great patriots created some ruckus over an idea that money should be backed by a sound commodity. They scoffed at the philosophy that money should be created at whim, with no labor and savings involved, to be distributed for the sole purpose of creating economic growth through a system based—not on hard work, carefully planned investments, and weighed risks, but instead—on a 'borrow and spend', living-beyond-the-means, live-for-today Keynesian usury scheme. Those patriots got some gears turning, and even though the Committee of Banking and Finance here in Georgia apparently did not see a clear path to—and were perhaps politically fearful of—a Constitutional return to Gold/Silver backed currency, hopefully, we were at least able get them to start considering why the monopoly of creation of a fiat currency is not the sturdiest foundation for a strong economy.

 Let's take a look at the Kitco value of Gold to the U.S. Dollar today, versus that same figure a year ago, around the time when the Constitutional Tender Act was first brought to attention:

 As you can see the gold price/oz. on January 27, 2009 was $897.50/oz.

 Fast-forward to January 27, 2010, and the price of gold/oz. in terms of U.S. Dollars was, at today's New York closing, $1,087.20/oz.

 That's quite an "increase" (I emphasize "increase" because I know that the value of gold in relation to the dollar is mostly a reflection of what the dollar's purchasing power is; Basically, gold cannot be created out of thin air, while paper dollars can, so in reality, it should be that gold has a mostly fixed value, whereas the Federal Reserve could create $20 Trillion tomorrow and we'd almost immediately feel the pain of inflation—I'd like to meet a guy who could create bars of gold out of thin air, but alchemy is a dead science.) [If that makes no sense, it's because I don't know how to put into words how I perceive this phenomenon. I'm no economist.]

 Now, I understand that this is an overly-simplified way of looking at things. I haven't taken into account the intricate market forces that determine the price of gold as denominated in U.S. Dollars (speculation, foreign transactions, central banking manipulation schemes, gold-mining, the perspective I just mentioned in the previous paragraph) but it is safe to assume that as the Federal Reserve continues to devalue the U.S. dollar by increasing the supply in circulation, gold's value will continue on its relative upward trend.

 What politician in the Georgia General Assembly would not relish in his/her ability to boast that they gave fiscally-responsible Georgians an alternative—a way to help protect their savings from inflation, and give them the freedom of choice in transactions? I think it would have been a win-win scenario, even if we had simply broken even in some way. We can continue to predict that a 'failure' of the gold-standard will not occur so long as the Federal Reserve keeps its head up its butt, and even in the event that the dollar again begins to rise in relation to the market value of gold (unlikely), we will still be left with a currency that is backed by a commodity and is legal in accordance to the U.S. Constitution.

Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; . . ."

The several states are as much in violation of this mandate as they were a year ago, as they were since the very first time the gold standard suffered its first blow to the gut as states began using fiat currency to pay off debts. The question is, "Will we continue to violate this wise practice of using honest money, or will we continue to place all hope on the Federal Reserve Note to make an insurmountable comeback?" The latter sounds like high-apple-pie-in-the-sky, at this point. Let's remind our state legislatures of their power (and DUTY!) to protect our savings. Let's re-invigorate the desire to create honest, real economic growth. Let's not do it simply for the sake of ourselves, but most importantly, let's do it for our posterity, who will be born into a world of debt that they never asked for. It's not too late to take that first step.

I've included a poll for readers to participate in after you have hopefully given careful consideration to the state of our economy. I'm not trying to say that I've gotten it all right, and that anyone else is totally wrong, but for the sake of sound currency, I think a civil debate is warranted as to how to proceed with the Constitutional Tender Act. Comments are welcome!

 EDIT #2: Poll question should read: How do you think things would be today if your state *had* passed a "Constitutional Tender Act"?

EDIT #3: I figured out how to get the gold price chart to show up.

No Audit, No Bernanke Posted by John Tate

Posted 01/21/10 Last updated 01/21/10

Our country's economic future is in Ben Bernanke's hands on a daily basis.

Now his job security is in ours.

I need you to immediately call your senators with a simple message: "No vote on Bernanke until we get a vote on Audit the Fed."

Click here to find contact information for your senators.

Here's what's going on and why you need to act immediately. It's a little complex, so bear with me.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has led the charge to place a "hold" on Bernanke's nomination to a second term as Fed chairman until the Senate votes on Audit the Fed. This means to get a vote on Bernanke, Harry Reid has to have a vote on "cloture" (just like in the health care battle), and that requires a super-majority of 60 votes.

Insiders now tell me that Harry Reid is threatening to ram through a cloture vote as early as next week.

Senator DeMint is joined by David Vitter, Jim Bunning, and Bernie Sanders in his efforts, but these senators cannot succeed alone. But right now, Republicans should stop caving in to Harry Reid's muscle on behalf of Ben Bernanke and the out of control Federal Reserve, and Democrats are cowering in fear of the popular revolt against out of control spending and the economic wreck it has helped create.

A strong message from Campaign for Liberty activists like you could start a stampede in the Senate that will make Harry Reid back off of Bernanke and give us a vote on Audit the Fed.

After all, Harry Reid is already the most vulnerable Democrat up for reelection next year, according to the polls.

Click here to find contact information for your senators.

Make sure you let them know that:

1.) If they are not cosponsoring Audit the Fed, you expect them to sign on in support of finding out what the Fed has done with trillions of our dollars. Tell them you will make sure their constituents know of their action or inaction on this issue.

2.) They must vote "no" on cloture until after there is a vote on Audit the Fed. No vote should be taken on Ben Bernanke's confirmation, or the nomination of anyone else for Fed Chairman, until Audit the Fed has received a public, up or down vote. The real issue here is not the Fed chairman himself. It is the need for complete transparency.

Ben Bernanke's term as Fed chairman expires on January 31, so Harry Reid is under pressure from Barack Obama to act quickly.

Which means we must act even faster.

The Senate has enough on its plate with the fight over health care, so they can ill afford to face yet another tough fight over the leadership's agenda.

Time to turn up the pressure.

Take action today to push for a vote on Audit the Fed, S. 604!

Personal Freedom: A Conclusion Reached By Different Means Posted by EternalVigilance

Posted 01/19/10

C4L Regional Conference was a place for discussions, questions, and speeches about the "idea" of freedom, which brought us all together. It also included opportunities to share our reasons for being personally enamoured with that idea, and how we each choose to express that love of freedom in our own lives.

In other words we all attracted to the "what", and find unity and action in the "what",  but unfortunately for some, they felt uneasy, angry or suspicious about the "why".

You see, asking "why", or considering "why" presumes a purpose. A purpose presumes the existence of axioms that set your goals, govern your behavior, and allow for self evaluation that attempt to explain the "why".

But where we could feel the emotions in the pit of our stomachs churning during each discussion, question, or speech was about the personal statements about the origin and location of those axioms: Generally speaking, either coming from inside a personal "you", or coming from outside from a personal "God".

Turns out that the conference should have had been subtitled "A Conference About What Freedom Is, Which Makes Us Happy, But Not a Conference for Why Freedom Is, Because That Will Makes Us Mad."

Freedom, like a bright light bulb illuminating a porch on a summer evening, will attract a variety of insects to it.

From our perspective as human observers we can use this metaphor to conclude that, without ever having met each other previously, it's obvious these insects have all reached the same conclusion that the light on that porch is something they absolutely must reach.

They may not understand, or even need to understand that it's just a lightbulb, and not the natural light shining from the canopy of heaven, be it the stars above, the sun, or the moon.

Nor that it wasn't put there to attract them specifically, by name or by personality type, but to attract all those seeking (back again to our perspective as observers) freedom, which is our light.

Why you believe in freedom, and what you intend to do with it, is the equivalent of realizing at this conference that identical moths (just like you) have not congregated around the light bulb, but that other species of moths are there with you (not quite like you).

And because some say things during discussions, questions and speeches (from your personal perspective) that remind you of blood sucking mosquitoes, around your light bulb, this "why" thing is really chapping your hide.

And so, I say, you might as well reach inside the house and turn off the porch light, because if you (of all people to do it!) are going to ignore what unifies you, what brought you together, what strengthens you, and what is going to make you work together to light the world, as you all flutter around your this idea, your this freedom, and your this light, because you don't like someone else's "why", then I'm sorry to say, you have no idea, no clue whatsoever, how to free anyone, much less yourself.

Millions of different "whys" around your light bulb - how dare they. Just toss the miracle of all of you showing up in the same place out the window because you were offended. That doesn't sound very mature, or very smart.

Could this be why children throwing tantrums, or juveniles posturing could be interpreted as potential adults who have yet to learn that true freedom begins with the constructive excercise of self control, the discipline of self knowledge, and the benefit of thinking critically?

One does not need the tyranny of a despot outside of you depriving you of freedom, if there is already a tyrant within you depriving you of its understanding and it's fruits.

The enemies of freedom are aware of this tyrant within. That incapacity, which outlines the gaps in your understanding, to introduce division. And when you don't think they are doing it to you from the outside, you are doing it to yourself to the detriment of all from within yourself.

Is it therefore possible to arrive at the same mature and informed conclusion that human freedom is self evident, whether one obtains the germ of that idea and forms that conviction from one's own reason, or from a "God"?

If you answer yes, then there is hope that you will not ignore or switch off the light that attracted us all to the fun, exciting porch that was the Sheraton, Atlanta. You have arrived at a place in your heart and mind where it finally hits you that it doesn't matter which seed plants the tree of freedom in someone else.

As long as the fruit it bears does not lead to freedom for it's own sake, as a child in rebellion pursues, but to freedom that perpetuates the self-evident miracle of life (which is one and the same as freedom), it doesn't matter if your neighbor sees the fingerprints of God on the fruit, or if you see your own.*

My perspective, and I think I'm permitted to express it here, is that they are one and the same. The latter being the image of the former.

If you should answer no, then write me, because keeping you is more important than losing you.

*This outlines the "how".

Atlanta Regional Conference a resounding success! Posted by Ike Hall

Posted 01/17/10

I would like to sincerely thank everyone who made the Campaign for Liberty Atlanta Regional Conference a resounding success.

Our deepest thanks go to the people who inspired us: Dr. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Tom DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, Mike Rothfeld, Dimitri Kesari, John Tate, and Matt Hawes. You are our heroes.

We also want to thank two incredible women for pulling everything together: Deb Hopper and Deb Wells. Thank you both for allowing us to host the event in Atlanta. It was an honor.

We could not have pulled off everything without our invaluable coordinators. My deepest gratitude goes to volunteer coordinator Kathy Harper, chief of security J.W. DeMarce, afterparty coordinators Anthony Lewis and Mary Lou Van Houten, chauffeur to the stars Sean Mangieri, and Georgia state meeting organizers Nathan Adams and Trey Laramore.

We want to thank our speakers at the Georgia Meeting: Valerie Meyers, Steve Matheson, Representative Bobby Franklin, Sean Mangieri, Jerry Henry, Jesse Bickel, Garland Favorito, Robert McGee, and Ray McBerry.

Thanks also to the Ladies of Liberty Alliance (LOLA) for hosting the Friday night event at the hotel!

The folks at the Sheraton Hotel in Atlanta could not have been more friendly and accommodating, especially with our last minute changes. Thank you very much!

Thanks, most of all, to all of our sponsors, volunteers, and attendees. Thanks to you, it was an amazing and successful event. It was wonderful to see so many old friends and to make so many new ones.

It's a New Decade for Liberty, and I'm so glad you were all there to help us celebrate!

Yours in liberty,
Ike Hall
Interim State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty

Georgia and The Second Amendment: A State Primer on Guns and Their Regulation Posted by nadams

Posted 12/18/09 Last updated 12/19/09

This past Friday I had the pleasure of attending The 2nd Annual Georgia and The Second Amendment: A State Primer on Guns and Their Regulation seminar hosted by The Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia.

Gun Law in Georgia: A Synopsis and Discussion of the Overlay of Local, State and Federal Regulations

After introductions, the program began with a discussion of the intricate (and confusing) overlay of local, state, and federal gun regulations. The panelist for this discussion were The Honorable Susan P. Tate, GA Probate Court Judge; John R. Monroe, Vice-President of GeorgiaCarry.Org; and Harry Foster, Staff Attorney for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Mr. Foster began the discussion by giving an overview of the origin of the ATF as a tax enforcement branch of the U.S. Treasury Department under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (26 U.S.C. Sections 5801-5872). Being passed prior to the "modern" commerce clause doctrine, the progressive controlled Congress felt that the only way for Congress to prohibit certain types of firearms (saw-off shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and the dubious "any other weapon") was through excessive taxation. It wasn't until the Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. Sections 921-931) that the commerce clause doctrine was brought to bear. Mr. Foster stated that today the ATF always has to show a nexus of interstate commerce to justify any actions it takes. Mr. Foster also spoke about the ATF's Trace database which is used to determine the commercial origins of a firearm.

Mr. Monroe spoke next about Georgia's license requirements (which apply to both open and concealed carry) and the negative effect of a recent court decision on law-abiding citizens who attempt to (legally) concealed carry a weapon. I was hoping to come away from the seminar with a clear understanding of just exactly where and under which circumstances I could legally carry a weapon. I did not. Among the Georgia's legal contradictions pointed out by Mr. Monroe were the court's interpretation of transporting a weapon in a car as concealment despite the language of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-126(c).

Judge Tate then discussed some of the processes and issues involved in issuing Georgia Firearms Licenses. In Georgia, judges generally use the FBI's NICS database to determine if an applicant is eligible to receive a license. Basis for denying an applicant were referred to as "prohibitors" and could be the result of state or federal law. Judges apply whichever law is more restrictive. For example, assume that state and federal statues prohibit anyone arrested for controlled substance violations from obtaining a license for one and five years, respectively. In this case the judge would deny the applicant for a period of five years since the federal law is more strict.

Controlled substance abuse is a particularly precarious issue for probate judges in Georgia. Judges are required to deny applicants if they are arrested or merely receiving treatment for controlled substance abuse; no conviction is required. Similar issues arise for anyone declared to be "mentally defective". One audience member pointed out that veterans are particularly vulnerable to this as they may be treated (and/or receive benefits because of) shell shock. Mr. Foster pointed out that recently a passed federal law now requires organizations to provide citizens with a way to appeal and find relief from such judgments, but that no standard process was in place.

Judge Tate also noted that the entire process put judges in the awkward position of actively investigating applicants (and not just on the basis of criminal convictions!) instead of simply applying the law impartially. The process can also put the burden of proving one's 'innocence' on the applicant, for example in cases of erroneous NICS data or even identity fraud.

On a personal (and somewhat ironic) note: Today I received an envelope from the Fulton County Probate Court that presumably would have contained my Georgia Firearms License. Unfortunately, the envelope was open (perhaps never properly sealed in the first place) and completely empty...

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment Post-Heller: The Question of Incorporation Now Before the Court in McDonald v. Chicago

After a short break, Professor L. Lynn Hogue from the Georgia State University College of Law lectured on the issues surrounding the recently decided Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller and the upcoming McDonald v. City of Chicago (which he called a "Constitutional petri dish"). Professor Hogue's program materials do an excellent job of discussing his analysis and opinion of the cases, their actual and potential fallout, etc. Some salient points from the lecture on Heller:

• Repudiates the theory that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right".
• Casts the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" with some limitations.
• Gives firearms (advocacy of, possession of, etc.) new 'dignity'.
• Implicitly allows for gun registration.

I found Professor Hogue's discussion of Incorporation fascinating. Contrary to popular belief, The Bill of Rights (or is that The Bill of Restrictions?) does not automatically apply to the several states, and early Supreme Court rulings upheld that it did not apply at all. Only after the 14th Amendment took effect did the Supreme Court begin to apply select portions of the Bill of Rights to the states under the Due Process Clause. Professor Hogue presented three possible outcomes of the McDonald decision:

1. The Supreme Court may continue the approach of selectively applying rights under the Due Process Clause.
2. The Supreme Court may apply the 2nd Amendment to the states under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Note that this would require establishing a new legal framework!
3. The Supreme Court may simply decide that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The professor also pointed out that the McDonald decision effectively drives a wedge between those conservatives who favor States Rights and those who favor 2nd Amendment Rights. As someone who favors both, I am indeed confounded.

Crossing State Lines and National Borders: New and Old Issues Domestically and Internationally

The next panel consisted of attorney Robert L. "Bob" Barr, former U.S. Congressman and Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee, and Richard J. Peltz, Visiting Professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.

Bob Barr's presentation concerned United Nations efforts to control 'small arms and light weapons' trade under the guise of global disarmament efforts that were traditionally limited to land mines and nuclear weapons. The danger today, he argues, is that the U.N. may now succeed given the Obama Administration's world governance leanings. To illustrate the underlying philosophy of the U.N. Mr. Barr described a report by Professor Barbara Frey which is described by the International Action Network on Small Arms as follows:

Examining the use of guns by civilians and armed groups, the UN Special Rapporteur concludes that there is no 'right' to self-defence under international human rights law. When someone uses a gun in self-defence, they can only use the principle of self-defence to establish that they have not committed a crime (eg their life was in danger). Even if there were a 'right' to self-defence, this does not affect governments' responsibility to prevent guns being misused.

Mr. Barr opined that this effort was being led by 'allies' such as Japan and especially the United Kingdom. The culmination of such an effort would be an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that if ratified by the U.S. Senate could lead to several negative outcomes for citizens:

• Forced participation in a global gun registry,
• Ban of broadly defined "assault weapons", and/or
• Requiring citizens to provide proof-of-need before acquiring firearms

Professor Peltz's presentation dealt with the issues surrounding Freedom of Information law as applied to gun registries or gun permit databases. He explained that Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) provide a mechanism for the public to determine "what the government is up to" but that the courts have generally tried to balance that need with individuals' reasonable right to privacy. This issue is not specific to gun registration, but in that context it raises some interesting delimmas. Professor Peltz cited cases were it was argued that the biographical information of individuals in a gun permit registry should be available for public scrutiny so that the public could audit the list for known felons, etc. But at the same time this type of scrutiny can put law abiding citizens on the registration list in harms way. Professor Peltz then gave a survey of the various access policies that the states have adopted for gun registries ranging from completely open to completely closed (as in Georgia).

The issue isn't limited to state law however. Professor Peltz also cited the Chicago v. ATF case which ruled that the ATF must open its Trace database (see above) of gun manufacturers and sellers to the City of Chicago (the city attorney's wanted to sue manufacturers and sellers under the guise of protecting public health). Subsequently Congress forbade the ATF from spending any funds to satisfy FOIA requests effectively nullifying the court's ruling.

Where Will We Go or Not Go From Here?: Past and Future Legislative Agendas

After lunch we regrouped for the final set of panelist which included GA General Assembly Representative Stacey Abrams (District 84); GA General Assembly Senator John Douglas (District 17); Georgia Assoc. of Chiefs of Police President and Covington Police Chief Stacey L. Cotton; and Attorney and GeorgiaCarry.Org President Ed Stone.

The premise of the final discussion was to discuss gun-related bills before the Georgia General Assembly and to get the panelists' opinions on which bills did or did not have a chance of being enacted in 2010. The materials provided for the seminar include an excellent synopsis of Georgia Constitutional and statutory law related to firearms as well as a listing of bills proposed by the General Assembly for 2010. The bills include H.B. 155, H.B.182, H.B. 259, H.B. 260, H.B. 286, H.B. 573, H.B. 615, H.B. 707, H.B. 767, H.B. 835, S.B. 9, S.B. 12, S.B. 162 (SUB), S.B. 281, S.B. 291, and S.B. 299. Despite the plethora of bills seeking to liberalize and/or restrict firearms in Georgia, the general consensus of the panel seemed to be that General Assembly would be far too busy trying to straighten out its budgetary nightmare to even consider the proposed legislation in 2010.

The discussion quickly shifted to each panelist's views on firearms, self defense, and regulation. Representative Abrams postulated that there could be reasonable restrictions or regulations on inherent rights and noted three questions she asks herself when considering whether such legislation is appropriate (paraphrasing):

1. Does the object/circumstance/etc. in question potentially cause harm to citizens?
2. Is there a 'vulnerable population' that may be affected?
3. Does the public have a right to know about a potential danger or harm (e.g. warning labels on dangerous chemicals)?

Senator Douglas warned that limiting one right in the name of a perceived gain in safety could quickly lead to limiting all rights for similar reasons and that limiting law abiding citizens from carrying firearms (the instruments of self defense) did not in fact enhance safety, a sentiment echoed by Mr. Stone.

Police Chief Cotton stated that his mantra as president of the Association was to let the legislative branch do the legislating and to only lobby when there was a obvious issue of officer safety involved. He further stated that the legislative agendas presented by Senator Douglas and Mr. Stone did not pose such an issue. Chief Cotton also described the immense power (and associated responsibility) that an officer wields while on duty. He also talked about the practical reality an officer faces in the field while trying to balance the rights of citizens in a free society against his or her own need to simply survive each encounter.

Mr. Stone then discussed the need to simplify and liberalize Georgia's carry laws. He cited the racist Jim Crow environment in which our current laws were originally adopted (as described in the report "Disarm the Negroes. The Racist Roots of Georgia's Gun Laws").

Representative Abrams responded:

"This may have been one of the few things Jim Crow did right."

Representative Abrams then seemed to argue that gun restrictions protect a 'vulnerable population' as per her criteria above. Not wanting take her quote out of context, I spoke with Representative Abrams on the phone and through email after the seminar (see below).

In his closing remarks, Ed Stone replied:

"Jim Crow got it wrong. It was wrong to disarm an unpopular minority [Georgia's black population] then, and it is wrong to disarm law abiding citizens now."

Conclusion

Overall I found the seminar to be well worth the time and effort, even for a non-lawyer such as myself. All of the panelist were excellent, and I commend them and the organizers for providing a forum for such fascinating discussions.

The only disappointment was the complete lack of 'incorporation' of the Georgia Constitution in the various discussions. It states:

ARTICLE I.
BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION I.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

My email exchange with Representative Abrams

From: [Nathan Adams]
To: [Rep. Stacey Abrams]
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Subject: GA and the 2nd Amendment quote

Dear Representative Abrams,

I am writing a blog to recap the "Georgia and the Second Amendment" seminar that you participated in today, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to verify a quote and provide any corrections or supporting context you may wish.

During your statements you stated that you ask yourself three basic question and use the answers to those as criteria for evaluating legislation:

1. Does the situation/object/circumstance in question potentially cause harm to citizens?
2. Is there a vulnerable population that may be affected?
3. Does the public have a reasonable right to know?

You also asserted your beliefs that rights are granted to citizens by the state and that reasonable restrictions on those rights can be made if any of the above questions true.

Later during the discussion, Ed Stone stated that the origin of Georgia's gun laws came from Jim Crow laws at the behest of racist editorials such as the "Disarm the Negroes" editorial published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1906. You then stated:

"This may have been one of the few things Jim Crow did right."

You then stated that you didn't agree with anything else involving Jim Crow laws and seemed to try to justify the remark by asserting that these laws protect a vulnerable population (per your 2nd criteria above).

I am certain that the quote is correct (I wrote it down immediately), but I would appreciate any clarification you could provide regarding its rationale.

Sincerely,

Nathan Adams

From: [Rep. Stacey Abrams]
To: [Nathan Adams]
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: GA and the 2nd Amendment quote

Dear Nathan,

Thank you again for allowing me to clarify my comments today. My comment regarding the Jim Crow-era origin of some of Georgia's gun laws was unconscionably glib and failed to illuminate the point I intended: the attempt to connect gun control in Georgia to a de facto support of racist laws is inappropriate. Regardless of the impetus for the laws, the reasonable restriction of who may carry a weapon and where is not an issue of race but of public policy. Indeed, the fact that the laws today impact all races equally speaks to the tenuous connection between the two.

You also summarized my statement about rights: "You also asserted your beliefs that rights are granted to citizens by the state and that reasonable restrictions on those rights can be made if any of the above questions true." To clarify, rights are not granted by the state but they are guaranteed by the state. That said, I believe that any infringement upon constitutional rights must be limited, but all rights are subject to some level of regulation - from the freedom of assembly or freedom to worship to the right to keep and bear arms. My test for the legitimacy of those restrictions is the one you accurately articulate, with one exception. The third test is not simply the public's right to know. It is the whether the public has a right to knowledge about potential danger or harm (e.g., warning labels on medication or danger signs at construction sites and no shouting "fire" in a theater or "bomb" at an airport).

Hopefully, this is helpful. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and contextualize my earlier statement. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.

Best regards,

[Representative Stacey Abrams]