On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) cannot be copyrighted, reversing a decision by the district court in the case of Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.org.

The court held that the Official Code, including editorial catchlines and annotations written by LexisNexis, is constructively authored by the people of the State of Georgia, through its representatives in the legislature and their contractors. As such, the court reasoned, Georgia’s single official version of its statutes, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, is in the public domain.

The case was brought when nonprofit Public.Resource.org scanned the O.C.G.A., distributed the scanned version to state legislators and published it online.  The state Code Commission sued Public.Resource.org in federal district court for copyright infringement, and Public.Resource.org countersued for a declaratory judgment holding that state statutes are in the public domain and therefore uncopyrightable.  The district court ruled for the state and issued a preliminary injunction, requiring Public.Resource.org to take all copies offline.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion reversed, holding that the statutes themselves were clearly in the public domain under centuries of copyright precedents.  In analyzing whether editorial annotations written by private publisher LexisNexis were copyrightable, the court held that the Code Commission had supervisory control over the work of LexisNexis, and that its annotations were merged with the statutory Code to produce the single, official, authoritative version of Georgia’s statutes.

Therefore, the court held, the complete O.C.G.A., including editorial annotations written by a private publisher on behalf of the Georgia Legislature, is constructively authored by the people of the State of Georgia.  The court held that the entire O.C.G.A. was therefore uncopyrightable and in the public domain.  As the court concluded:

[T]he annotations in the OCGA are attributable to the constructive authorship of the People. To advance the interests and effect the will of the People, their agents in the General Assembly have chosen to create an official exposition on the meaning of the laws of Georgia. In creating the annotations, the legislators have acted as draftsmen giving voice to the sovereign’s will. The resulting work is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all.

Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.org, No. 17-11589 (11th Cir., Oct. 19, 2018). The opinion is considered an important win for entrepreneurs, innovators, and members of the public who wish to use public law.

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Eleventh Circuit Rules Georgia Code is Uncopyrightable appeared first on Law Street.

The owner of an Atlanta gym wants the world to know that police aren’t welcome at his business.

Recently, Jim Chambers posted a sign on the front door of the EAV Barbell Club explaining the gym’s rules. The sign is clearly visible from the street and reads, “Do whatever the hell you want, correctly, except crossfit cultism. No f—–g cops.”

According to Chambers, although the sign went up a couple weeks ago, he has enforced this policy since the gym opened. He also does not give memberships to active members of the military.

Former law enforcement and military members, however, are welcome to join.

In an interview with Reuters, Chambers explained that most of his clients are minorities and/or members of the LGBT community. Many of them would be uncomfortable working out alongside law enforcement because police officers had harassed them in the past.

“We know statistically that those people are at risk around police in America,” Chambers said. “I had members who joined because of the policy: they saw it on the door and thought, ‘Oh, that’s cool,’ and joined.”

He has since removed the vulgar sign but plans to put up another without the expletives.

The Atlanta Police Department has not released an official statement about the policy. However, a representative told local news station WXIA, “Were we to respond to an emergency there, this sign would not stop us from lawfully doing our job.”

Chambers doesn’t mind. “If they have a warrant, they can go anywhere they want, but we’re not breaking the law,” he said.

He also noted that, as someone who describes himself as “somewhere between an eco-anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist,” he would not be likely to call the police in the first place.

WXIA reached out to a team of lawyers about the legality of the policy. They agreed that federal anti-discrimination laws do not protect law enforcement as a separate group. The courts could decide if the policy is discriminatory, but for now, it remains legal.

Since the story broke on Tuesday, mixed reactions have been pouring in on social media. The gym’s Facebook page currently has a 1.4 rating and over 2,000 one-star reviews.

Atlanta Gym Owner Puts Up Sign, ‘No F—ing Cops’ – Tells Reporters: No Veterans Either https://t.co/KUGJQNMsCt
Wow
Why would anyone go there?

— Truckster1 (@truckster1) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym owner you're doing amazing sweetie https://t.co/sLUzClmBkc

— reggie (@1942bs) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym bans Cops from joining.

It’s their right. And it’s our right not to join & to protest outside the gym. https://t.co/l7BmVeYzV8

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 9, 2017

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atlanta Gym Bans Police and Active Military Members appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Betsy DeVos Will Meet With Accused Rapists and a “Men’s Rights” Group

Today, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos will meet with attorneys representing men who claim to have been falsely accused of rape. She will also meet with a former Navy serviceman who has been lobbying against what he calls the “military’s sexual assault witch hunt,” as well as another man who claims to have been falsely accused and is currently a representative for Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE.) SAVE may sound like a good thing, but it mostly argues that rape claims are false. Its website has features about topics like “rape hoaxes” and “rape culture hysteria.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that SAVE’s goal is to get rid of services for abuse victims, and to “return the focus to the ‘true victims of abuse’–the falsely accused.” SAVE and some other “men’s rights” groups have been known to publish names of rape survivors in order to shame them, and blame women for their assaults, according to Jaclyn Friedman, an expert on campus sexual violence.

“DeVos also plans to meet with groups…with a track record of intimidating rape survivors.“

This is a new low. https://t.co/Cu4hFmyrnp

— Brittany Packnett (@MsPackyetti) July 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Paris Man Who Rammed Car of Explosives into Police Vehicle Was on Terror Watch List

Yesterday, a man rammed a car full of explosives into a police vehicle, although he only ended up killing himself. The incident is being investigated as a terror attack. It took place on the historic Champs-Elysees. In April, the famous avenue saw another attack, when a man shot a police officer. Authorities had previously flagged the perpetrator, who was identified as Adam Dzaziri, 31, for potential extremism. There were also knives, pistols, and an assault rifle inside the vehicle.

Guns are not easily accessible in Europe and this morning Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said he is “dismayed” that someone on a terror watch list had so many weapons. “Nobody can be satisfied–and certainly not me–that someone who had been flagged as radicalized had not been stripped of his right to own a gun,” he said. France has remained under a state of emergency since 2015 following a string of terror attacks. For many Europeans, these terror attacks have become the new normal.

Suspect’s family members detained after Champs-Elysees attack in Paris https://t.co/w8TZQneypO pic.twitter.com/gBMikNzhVX

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 20, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since it was announced that Donald J. Trump was going to be the 45th President of these United States of America, Democrats have been looking to attach themselves to any kind of competition to gain some kind of payback for their defeat (See: Super Bowl LI). Although it didn’t result in an explicit victory, this past Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s House seat in its Sixth District offered Democrats their first viable taste of victory and vengeance.

Wednesday’s special election resulted in Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly missing out on the 50 percent of the vote that he needed to win the contest outright, thus making a run-off between Ossoff and top GOP vote-getter Karen Handel necessary. The details of the run-off, scheduled for June 20, have already become the subject of controversy and, now, a lawsuit.

Yesterday, the DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of five different civil rights groups–the Georgia NAACP among them–that claims that a certain Georgia state law that prohibits those who weren’t registered for this week’s special election from voting in June’s run-off is in violation of national voting laws.

The reportedly violated law that the complaint cites is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which explicitly states that states “can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.” The complaint claims that Georgia’s “statutory scheme” effectively creates a deadline that exceeds the restriction of a 30-day registration deadline, which will mean that people who registered between March 21 and May 22 won’t be eligible to vote in June.

According to the complaint, the five groups are seeking “injunctive relief” by requiring the state of Georgia to allow all eligible residents of Georgia’s Sixth District the ability to continue to register to vote in the June run-off through May 22.

Speaking to reporters, Candice Broce, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, characterized the lawsuit as a “political attack” “This law has been in place since [former Georgia Secretary of State] Cathy Cox, a Democrat, was in office but they’ve waited until now to challenge it. This is just being done to disrupt our processes. We will fight it in court,” Broce said.

Broce also said that Georgia state law treats run-off elections as extensions of special elections, which would make the rigidity of the voter registration deadline a logical practice.

Georgia has a record of employing various voter suppression tactics both historically and recently. In October, the ACLU sued the state over its decision to not extend its voter registration deadline in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in a statement that the lawsuit was a “nakedly political stunt to manipulate the system and squander state and county resources days before the election.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Sued Over Alleged Voter Suppression appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

All Eyes on Georgia’s Sixth

Today, the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia is holding a special election to fill the House seat that became vacant when Tom Price left to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although the state is very red and most of the candidates are Republicans, 30-year-old Democratic candidate and documentary filmmaker Jon Ossoff is hoping to snag more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. This election has been deemed the first litmus test for Donald Trump’s presidency. Many are hopeful that Ossoff can pull it off.

Georgia’s special election: Can Jon Ossoff land a knockout in Round 1?https://t.co/V1MXitS8Y0

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 18, 2017

However, Republicans have countered with Islamophobic ads featuring images of Osama bin Laden. They’ve called Ossoff untrustworthy because his production company made videos for al-Jazeera, a Qatari news organization. And over the weekend, voting machines were stolen from a Cobb County precinct manager’s car. The machines reportedly have voter information in them, but it is “hard to access.” According to the county’s Elections Director Janine Eveler, the machines could not be used to fraudulently vote. But still, all eyes are on Jon Ossoff today.

Georgia! Don’t forget tomorrow’s special election. It’s either take one hour and vote or go to a town hall every week and scream until 2018.

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) April 17, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On April 18, Democrats hope to flip a reliably red district in suburban Atlanta blue, in a special election for the House seat left vacant by Tom Price. Price is now the secretary of Health and Human Services. Jon Ossoff, the leading Democratic hopeful, is one of 18 candidates for Georgia’s Sixth District–most are Republicans. All will appear on the same ballot, which Ossoff, 30, hopes to exploit.

Decency. Humility. Respect. Values this campaign believes in. Values worth fighting for. https://t.co/fBvar6nbGX pic.twitter.com/P59QQ1t4dm

— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) April 1, 2017

If the Republican vote is split among the dozen or so Republicans, Ossoff can win the election outright. To do that, he would need at least 50 percent of the vote which, in a district that has been a GOP bastion for decades, is far from guaranteed. If none of the candidates clinch the election with 50 percent of the vote, a run-off is scheduled in June for the top two vote-getters.

Republican strategists say that Ossoff’s best chance is to win outright on April 18, something they cede is possible, but they remain confident that he would lose in a run-off to whichever Republican candidate emerges from the pack. Steve Strivers, the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, recently told Politico that he is confident enough Republican voters will turn out to stave off the surging Ossoff.

“Special elections are special, and the Democrats and some independents are excited, so we need to make sure Republicans are just as excited about voting,” he said “Our job is to make sure we keep him below 50 [percent],” Stivers added: “Then we coalesce and unite our forces around one candidate in June.”

The top candidates from both parties are pulling an uncommon number of campaign donations. Ossoff has raised more than $4 million, including over $1 million from readers of the liberal-leaning news site, the Daily Kos. The surge in donations is likely a result of the liberal resistance to President Donald Trump, which Ossoff has pledged to join if he were elected. Republicans have also raised a few million dollars to boost their field of candidates, including front-runner–and former Georgia secretary of state–Karen Handel.

While the Sixth District has been a Republican stronghold for decades, there are some signs that Ossoff, a Georgetown University graduate who currently works as a documentary filmmaker, can turn the tide blue. For one, polls show Ossoff in the lead. But perhaps more importantly, the district supported Trump over his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, by 1.5 percentage points, a far narrower victory than Republican candidates traditionally enjoy in the affluent, highly-educated district.

A Democratic victory would not have a sizable affect on the make-up of the House, as Republicans currently hold 237 seats to Democrats’ 193. Five seats are vacant, four of which are open because the representatives were tapped for posts in the Trump Administration, including Price. But as one of the first elections since Trump’s Election Day upset, Democrats could score a symbolic notch that could provide momentum for the mid-term elections in 2018.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Jon Ossoff’s Campaign for Georgia’s Sixth appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday afternoon, certain states began to feel the impact of the storm that has already claimed 108 lives in Haiti. President Obama declared a state of emergency in Florida as Hurricane Matthew started approaching the coast. This measure allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to start working on coordinating disaster relief and releases federal funding for that purpose.

BREAKING: President Barack Obama declares state of emergency in Florida as potentially catastrophic Hurricane Matthew approaches.

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 6, 2016

As some people planned on keeping their businesses open or even having a “hurricane party,” Florida Governor Rick Scott ordered 1.5 million residents to seek safety. With the chilling words “You need to leave. Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate […] this storm will kill you,” he made sure people know this is no laughing matter.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott: “Do not surf. Do not go on the beach. This will kill you.” https://t.co/5kRoLafLlr pic.twitter.com/sc1fj1WGdL

— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) October 6, 2016

One man told NPR he was going to wait out the hurricane in his RV less than a mile from the beach. “The hype is going to be worse than the actual storm. I feel I can do quite well,” he said.

But that doesn’t sound like a very good idea. According to the National Hurricane Center the storm is increasing in strength as it moves toward the U.S. It is now a Category 4 storm. By Thursday morning, 3,000 people were already in shelters in Florida. Disney World will close by 5PM on Thursday and stay closed on Friday.

Wind speeds reached 140 mph as Hurricane #Matthew battered the Bahamas https://t.co/UMxnwOqZ1O pic.twitter.com/Qiu3Asx7xH

— CNN International (@cnni) October 6, 2016

At the same time in Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal ordered the first evacuation in 17 years, which will affect 500,000 people. The Georgia coast has not been hit with a major hurricane since 1898, which is why extra safety measures may be a good idea. The lanes of some interstates are being reversed so that traffic can only move west. South Carolina has also ordered around 1.1 million people to leave. As natural disasters can create panic and confusion, a fight about evacuation routes in South Carolina resulted in gunfire between police and a driver on Wednesday night, leaving the driver injured.

Haiti was dramatically hit by the hurricane, leaving 108 dead and 300,000 people in shelters across the country. This is the worst crisis for the country since it experienced a massive earthquake six years ago.

100+ have lost their lives. 15k ppl evacuated. Help us rebuild Haiti after #HurricaneMatthew. Donate now: https://t.co/VqEulpDwPM pic.twitter.com/Kc6ckNK0mq

— UN Development (@UNDP) October 6, 2016

No one knows how hard the hurricane is going to hit the U.S. coast or if it will even move in over land at all. But it could potentially get really bad. Researcher Brian McNoldy told the AP:

In some ways, the worst-case scenario would be if the storm’s eye stays just offshore, enabling it to feed over water and avoid weakening while its strongest hurricane winds keep smacking the beaches.

Hopefully people will listen to the evacuation orders and stay out of the way of the worst of the storm.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Governor Orders Evacuation: “This Storm Will Kill You” appeared first on Law Street.

Newton County, Georgia, which bills itself as a center of southern small town charm, is now the site of an ugly dispute over land use as the local Muslim community struggles to build a Muslim mosque and cemetery.

Over the course of several years, the imam Mohammad Islam has built a congregation that now seeks to build a mosque and cemetery on a plot of land in Newton County, purchased by Islam in 2015. He made his plans clear, officially purchased the land, and was ready to build upon the site–until local backlash derailed what should have been a perfectly straightforward construction project. The plans to build the mosque, cemetery, and other affiliated buildings came under fire because they would have been approved without public comment, and an outpouring of protest from the community bolstered by social media led the Board of Commissioners to place a five week moratorium on the construction or the submission of plans for construction of any new religious structures. After the moratorium ends, the Board members will vote on whether or not they will change the zoning rules for religious structures. Ostensibly new zoning would impact any religious building, but thanks to the “Stop the Mosque” campaign and the mass turnout to the public hearings, there is no doubt that the Board is looking to penalize the Islamic community for their proposed structure. There has never been a similar reaction from the community regarding the construction of a Christian building. The objection to the mosque is so clearly prejudiced that federal investigators are looking into investigating the Board of Commissioners.

Comparisons will of course be made to citizens protesting the building of the proposed Park51  Islamic community center at Ground Zero, but comparing these two constructions makes virtually no sense. The proposed mosque and cemetery of Newton, County Georgia is not being built near the site of a massive American tragedy, that must be preserved for historical record. It is not angering locals because they think it disrespects the memory of lives lost (although that logic is flawed in and of itself). In fact, the reason Georgians want to shut down the construction of the mosque and cemetery is because at least some fear it will attract refugees to their community.

Tens of thousands of refugees have been forced from their homes because of uncontrollable violence, shuttled from country to country looking for a safe haven, trying to learn new languages, adjust to a new culture and, above all, contribute and participate in their new communities. The U.S. will not be accepting the same number of refugees that Europe has; our public services and law and order will not be strained under the weight of a population explosion like our European allies. We are accepting and seeking to aid refugees, but we are taking in only a minuscule portion of those who are seeking shelter–and yet, that is still too much for the residents of Newton County.

Never mind that the state of Georgia will be resettling far fewer refugees than states such as Michigan, Illinois and California or that the construction of a single mosque is not in fact what puts a community on the short-list for refugee settlement. Never mind that refugees are seeking to create new lives in which they will become participants in the community, working local jobs, paying county taxes, and sending their children to local schools. What is truly at the core of the objections to the mosque is more than bigotry, it is selfishness. Newton County residents are so afraid of sharing their resources, even land which has been purchased legally for a fair price, that they will not let fellow community members build a simple structure. It seems the refugee population is right to steer clear of them.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Stop the Mosque: Islamophobia in Newton County, Georgia appeared first on Law Street.

A woman named Titi Pierce from Warner Robins, Georgia, is suing Warner Brothers over a segment Ellen DeGeneres did on her popular daytime talkshow. Pierce is a Robins Air Force Base engineer and a real-estate agent. On her February 22 show, DeGeneres showed footage of one of Pierce’s real estate signs and mispronounced her name as “titty Pierce.” As a result of the mocking, Pierce has allegedly received threats and harassment, and filed a lawsuit in District Court on Thursday.

Pierce’s name is actually pronounced “tee-tee” and is originally a Nigerian name meaning “flower.” However, DeGeneres made a series of breast-related jokes about Pierce’s name in a segment about funny signs. DeGeneres also contrasted Pierce’s real estate sign with another sign advertising the “Nipple Convalescent Home,” stating: Titty Pierce, sounds like she might have spent some time in that nipple home, I don’t know.”

The segment was broadcast in February, and then shown again on a rerun in April. It was also posted to the show’s Facebook page.

Pierce’s lawsuit claims that DeGeneres’s show showed her phone number when the sign was displayed (although it was blurred out on the version that was posted to Facebook.) As a result of the show, Pierce claims to have received a number of harassing and mocking phone calls. In response her office posted on Facebook:

Loving that our own Titi Pierce of CBRF (Coldwell Banker Robbins & Free) was on the Ellen DeGeneres show, but wish it was because they knew how fabulous and classy Titi is and not to poke fun. We love you Titi and are proud to have you in the CBRF Family.

Pierce’s lawsuit alleges that DeGeneres “defamed her, invaded her privacy and intentionally inflicted distress.” Pierce is asking for damages, and is aiming to keep the segment from airing again.

Check out the clip in question below (although note that the number has been now blurred out):

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Warner Brothers Sued After Ellen DeGeneres Mocks Woman’s Name appeared first on Law Street.

The exterior of the Kiwi Cafe exudes calm and quirk: a mint green paint job is covered in cartoon figures, including one of a bird riding a bicycle that has kiwi fruits for tires. But on Sunday, inside the cafe, which is in the Old Town neighborhood of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a country sandwiched between Turkey and Russia), a chaotic scene took place.

According to witness accounts, a group of 15 or so nationalist radicals walked into the cafe–which serves vegan fare and has a counterculture ethos–and pulled out grilled meat and fish. They started eating the forbidden foods and then began throwing them at the cafe’s patrons, who were watching a screening of the American cartoon “Rick and Morty.” A brawl ensued, spilling into the streets. The police were called. People living near the cafe joined the commotion. One neighbor wielded a knife.

And while nobody was seriously injured, the incident highlights an emerging faction in Georgian society: radical nationalist groups that yearn for a closed Georgia populated by ethnic Georgians. Days before the assault, far-right nationalist groups marched in Tbilisi to mark Georgia’s independence from the Soviet Union decades ago. But the marchers summoned an old slogan with nefarious connotations: “Georgians for Georgia,” which for most Georgians drudges up memories of the ethnic clashes of the early 1990s.

On it’s Facebook page, the Kiwi Cafe posted a statement condemning the actions of the “neo-Nazis:”

“They said that we must leave ‘their’ street, leave the country, do not ‘establish our procedure’, because in Georgia it’s not accepted to act like we do.”

The statement also made mention of a group of people who a month ago asked a nearby store clerk about the “LGBT, foreigners, punks, etc.” that hang out in the Kiwi Cafe. And while an official investigation into the matter has not been launched yet, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, witnesses said the attackers fled before the police arrived so the police directed their questioning at the cafe staff and customers.

“Because most of the staff, and a lot of the guests, have piercings and mohawk hairstyles, the police thought they were the ones responsible for the incident,” wrote one witness in an online post.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Attack at Vegan Cafe in Tbilisi Underscores Wave of Radical Nationalists appeared first on Law Street.

A Georgia man on death row, Tyrone Foster, may get a second chance after the Supreme Court weighed in on the evidence of racial bias found in his jury trial. SCOTUS’s decision overturned the Georgia Supreme Court ruling, and will most likely lead to a new trial for Foster–29 years after he was first sentenced to death.

Foster, a black man charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman, Queen Madge White, was tried by an all-white jury. Moreover, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the prosecutors wanted it that way–they struck black jurors for reasons that appeared to be racially motivated. For example, in the notes that the prosecutors took during jury selection, they marked black potential jurors with a “b.” According to the LA Times, one black juror was excluded because the prosecutor said that “his son was convicted of ‘basically the same thing’ as the defendant, who was charged with rape and murder. In fact, the man’s son had been given a suspended sentence five years earlier for stealing hubcaps from a car.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision, wrote that “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.”

A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, made it clear that it’s up to judges to watch over prosecutors when it comes to jury selection, and probe their choices if anything seems amiss. But that process does rely on judges to actually follow through–and in Foster’s case, the judges accepted the prosecutors’ reasoning for why certain jurors were selected and others weren’t.

But Foster’s case is also somewhat rare, in that the defendant’s lawyers were actually able to prove that there was racial motivation in the jury selection. Stephen Bright of the Southern Center of Human Rights, who was Foster’s lead lawyer, pointed out:

This discrimination became apparent only because we obtained the prosecution’s notes which revealed their intent to discriminate. Usually that does not happen. The practice of discriminating in striking juries continues in courtrooms across the country. Usually courts ignore patterns of race discrimination and accept false reasons for the strikes.

Foster’s case will now be reevaluated–and while it’s not ensured he’ll receive a new trial, it certainly seems like the most likely possibility.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Weighs in on Black Man Sentenced to Death by All-White Jury appeared first on Law Street.

At a news conference on Monday, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) announced his intention to veto a controversial bill that would provide certain protections to opponents of same-sex marriage. House Bill 757 would allow religious leaders, faith-based organizations, and businesses to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to provide services to the LGBT community, as well as deny employment to LGBT individuals.

The bill was passed by Georgia Legislature earlier this month, but was rejected by the Governor, who stated Monday:

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

This decision comes after pressures from the business community to veto the bill, including many film and television studios who threatened to boycott the state for filming if the law was passed. Among the companies that threatened to withdraw were Walt Disney Co., Marvel Studios, CBS, AMC, and many others. Additionally, the NFL stated that it would pull Atlanta out of consideration to host Super Bowl LIII in 2019, an event that would surely bring revenue to the state.

Despite this, Deal stated that he did “not respond well to insults and threats,”and cited Constitutional and moral principles for his decision to veto.

If this legislation sounds familiar, it may be because many similar “religious liberty” bills have been popping up recently in states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indiana. It also comes in the wake of the passing of a contentious new law in North Carolina that has been widely criticized for being “anti-LGBT.” The next state to keep an eye on is Mississippi, whose House just passed a bill that supposedly protects religious liberty by prohibiting discrimination against anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Governor Deal’s veto shows a break away from the positions of many of the other conservative governors faced with similar legislation. Whether or not this was a decision based on economic interests or if it was truly about the “character of Georgia,” as the Governor claimed, can be debated;  it was, however, ultimately a win for LGBT rights in the state.

This fight isn’t over yet, however; while the case in Georgia has ben settled, those who believe that their “religious liberties” are in conflict with same-sex marriage will continue to wage their battles in state capitals all over the country.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Georgia Governor Strikes Down Religious Liberty Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Lawmakers in many states still seem to be having a hard time coping with the idea of not only same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples should receive equal rights.

Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia are not the only states to seemingly reject the principle of the SCOTUS decision last year, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, but they are the three most recent examples. If we tried to actually discuss all of the different states’ provisions following the Supreme Court ruling, it would take hours to read this. According to the Human Rights Campaign, last year more than 100 anti-LGBT bills were filed in 29 states.

Kentucky and Georgia are two states that have recently passed religious liberty legislation through one or both of their houses. Kentucky’s bill, SB 180, passed through the senate with a 22-16 vote and is now awaiting its fate in the house. Georgia’s HB 757 passed through both the senate and the house and has been sent to the governor’s desk. The governor, Nathan Deal, has expressed that he will not sign the bill into law in its current form. Meanwhile Alabama is changing around marriage laws following the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Religious liberty laws prohibit the local or state government from infringing on businesses’ rights to deny services to people who violate their religious beliefs. Such legislation is usually written in a way that does not explicitly mention the LGBT community, but this aim is implied by the swift wave of new legislation following same-sex marriage’s effective nationwide legalization and recent cases of businesses refusing service to same-sex customers based on their religious beliefs.

Many cases about businesses and state officials refusing services to same-sex couples have been brought to court recently, including: in May 2014, a Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage citing religious beliefs, and the infamous Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s recent legislation was created to enhance the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new legislation clarifies that businesses cannot be punished in certain cases for violating pre-existing local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said the legislation is designed to protect everyone’s religious liberties…but critics worry it doesn’t extend to civil liberties.

Robinson spoke on the senate floor and said that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service if they are required to “use their skills to provide a customized service celebrating something that violated one of the tenets of their faith.”

But religious liberty legislation has a history of causing economic problems for the states that enact it. Last year following the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the state saw a loss of  a dozen conventions resulting in a $60 million loss in revenue, according to a document prepared by Visit Indy obtained by the Associated Press.

Georgia

In Georgia, where a similar bill has passed through both houses in the state legislature, the effects of its possible passage are causing some businesses to plan on relocation.

Telecommunications firm 373K, which was founded by Kelvin Williams and is located in Atlanta, is one of the outspoken businesses against the bill. Williams, who is gay, said he and his employees supported the decision to relocate to possibly Delaware or Nevada if the bill passes.

“For the past year we’ve been building a global carrier network. We have to start hiring more,” Williams said to CBS News. “I can’t always find the perfect person in Georgia. I might have to reach out across the world. Would I want to move to Georgia if someone else offered me a job after this? The answer was no.”

Alabama

Alabama is a bit of a different situation, but still relevant for the discussion of anti-LGBT proposals. Recently, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would do away with marriage licenses and change to contracts that are filed with the state. Alabama (like many other states) was previously having the issue of some county probate judges who had stopped giving marriage licenses altogether in order to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

Openly gay Representative Patricia Todd, who opposed the bill, deemed it unnecessary and said that the judges should just do their jobs, according to the Associated Press.

There is no way to tell how this will affect other aspects of the law, especially when it comes to divorce. If one aspect of the marriage system is altered in the eyes of the state, other things will likely need to change as well. For example, will divorce procedure need to be changed? How is that going to work? There is really no way to tell how this is going to change the system, all to alleviate the pain and burden on a few officials who refuse to do one of their explicitly stated jobs. If any of these bills are enacted into law, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the potential economic and social consequences that could arise.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2016 and Some State Lawmakers are Still Trying to Fight LGBT Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Florida has so many moronic laws that it could almost take up an entire post by itself.

The popular college spring break destination features some rather entertaining laws, for example one prohibiting committing “unnatural acts” with another person. Gotta love those vague terms! Furthermore, unmarried couples may not commit “lewd” acts and live together in the same residence.

Lewd acts? Define, please.

If you wish to get around via a swamp buggy, a very popular mode of transportation in Florida, be aware that they are not included in the state’s definition of “motor vehicle,” and are thus not regulated.

Some lawmaker must have gotten sick of the lack of consistency regarding the direction that doors open, as they decided to make it a law that all doors open outward. I’m not sure if this law applies to airport bathrooms, but I always thought that it was irritating that they open inward when you are trying to close it around your suitcase once inside.

Even parents who are driven to the brink of insanity by their children’s actions may not sell their kiddos in Florida. Pigs can be confined in cages in Florida unless they are pregnant, in which case the law requires them to roam free.

Watch your mouth in Mississippi, where you could be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places. And if someone is disturbing your spiritual experience in church, go ahead and arrest him or her. There, private citizens may personally arrest any person who disturbs a church service.

There are tons of laws relating to sexual relations, illegitimate children, and other similar topics in Mississippi. For starters, if someone is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person can go to jail for at least one month. Living together while not married or having sex with someone who is not your spouse results in a fine of $500 and/or six months in prison. Unnatural intercourse (whatever that even means), if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of ten years and $10,000. Lastly on the sex topic, it is not legal to teach others what polygamy is.

Phew, those two states were a doozy, and we still have two more to go! Moving on to Alabama….

It’s a bit sad that this law had to be created, since it seems like a pretty commonsense thing to never do, but Alabama officially banned incestuous marriages. Another one that confuses me as to why it needs to actually be written into law is that driving blindfolded is illegal.

If you plan to attend a bear-wrestling match in Alabama you’ll have to change your plans as they are strictly prohibited. Also, beware that impersonating a person of the clergy is against the law, as is maiming yourself to get out of duty or to obtain alms. People whose preferred pastime is playing Dominoes will have to come up with an alternative game for Sundays as playing that particular game on that particular day is illegal.

As is the case with Florida, Georgia has almost enough dumb laws to warrant an entirely separate post, so I’ll try to keep it concise. Do you have a life goal to live on a boat in Georgia? Too bad. You cannot live on a boat for more than 30 days during the year. No getting kinky on boats there either, as sex toys are banned.

Not for 30 days in Georgia, you’re not

In Acworth, Georgia there must be mass amounts of leaves covering the ground during the Fall months, as residents there are required by law to own a rake. Athens-Clarke County takes the cake for the strangest laws in the state, though. There, adult bookstores may not sell alcohol. Didn’t think that was generally a place people flock to for booze, but what do I know. I also wasn’t aware of anyone venturing to a massage business for his liquor, but Athens-Clarke County felt the need to ban that as well so who knows. Yeah, lots of weird stuff with alcohol. It is also illegal to sell two beers for a single price as a deal. For example, “a bar can’t run a two Bud Lights for $5 special.”

There are some bizarre curfew laws in Athens-Clarke, where one may not read a book out loud in public after 2:45 AM and persons under 16 may not play pinball after 11:00 PM. Bummer for them, because 11:00 PM is prime pinball time.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia & Florida appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a relatively accepted “no no” for an adult to leave a child locked in a parked car in the scorching heat while they grab a latte, chat with a friend, take a yoga class, or basically do anything that doesn’t involve supervising their child. This type of abandonment is so taboo that states have even implemented laws allowing good samaritans to go full on Jazmine Sullivan and “bust the windows out ya car” to rescue trapped overheating kids. Unfortunately one Georgia man learned that these laws don’t extend to pets after he decided to save a panting pooch and was rewarded with handcuffs.

According to a story from USA Today, Michael Hammons, a Desert Storm veteran, used his wife’s wheelchair leg to smash the window of a parked car after hearing from bystanders that there was a dog inside in distress. Hammons told USA Today,

I’ve got PTSD, and I’ve seen enough death and destruction, and I didn’t want anything else to happen if I could prevent it.

One woman who witnessed the rescue claimed to reporters that “if it is 80 degrees outside, within 30 minutes, it will be 114 degrees inside a vehicle, even with the windows cracked.” Bystanders had reportedly already phoned 911 before and were waiting for police to arrive, but for Hammons there was no time to lose. Understandably so, as who wouldn’t want to save this face?

Man saves dog in hot car, but gets arrested http://t.co/us6hgullNh pic.twitter.com/SSwImry7js

— WBIR Channel 10 (@wbir) May 12, 2015

Police were forced to take action after the owner of both the dog and car came out of the store pissed and demanded police arrest him. Oconee County Chief Deputy Lee Weems told USA Today,

We would not have made those charges on our own. The deputies on scene say the owner of the car and of the dog was very insistent that he be charged with criminal trespassing.

The dog’s owner claimed that she had only been gone five minutes, even though witnesses said it was actually much longer. Regardless of how long her errand actually was, the decision to leave her dog susceptible to heat stroke in 80 degree weather wasn’t a bright decision on her part. Since there was no surveillance video proof of her alleged lengthy abandonment, deputies were only able to issue her a citation. Interestingly enough, USA Today reports that Georgia state law does allow for an individual to break a window to save a child in a hot or cold car, just not a pet.

As we approach summer and hotter temps, there will undoubtedly be more cases of naive people leaving young kids and pets being locked in hot cars, so if you’re considering your own rescue attempt consider what happened to Michael Hammons first, and maybe consider waiting for the police.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Saves Dog From Hot Car, Gets Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

I spent all of last week in Costa Rica, so I had a lot of catching up to do when I returned. And when I went to check my news feed for weird legal stories to write about here, it did not disappoint. A man shot both an armadillo (or an armadilla, as it is pronounced in the South) and his mother-in-law (I feel as if there is a good mother-in-law joke in there somewhere), and a 70-year-old woman was arrested for smuggling cocaine in her girdle – though for me, the real crime there is that someone still wears a girdle in this day and age.

The Shot Heard Round the Yard

The expression kill two birds with one stone recently took on a whole new meaning. A Georgia man was out shooting armadillos with his pistol. It is, apparently, encouraged in his town to shoot armadillos in general, but pistols are not the gun of choice in such a situation. Why? Because if you shoot an armadillo with a pistol, here is what might happen:

• The bullet ricochets off the animal’s sturdy back;
• The bullet then hits a fence;
• The bullet ricochets off the fence;
• The bullet flies through the back door of your mother-in-law’s mobile home;
• The bullet goes through the recliner where your mother-in-law is sitting; and,
• The bullet finally stops … after hitting your mother-in-law in the back.

The lady in question walked away just fine and is not pressing charges; however, I would not recommend any of you mom-in-law haters out there try this at home. It might not work out so well for you.

Granny’s Got a Drug Cartel

It’s not often that we hear of a story where people are trying to find out what’s inside a 70-year-old woman’s underwear, but recently at JFK airport TSA officials did just that. Olive Fowler is not your average little, old lady. Sure, she wears girdles and granny panties just like everyone else, but her Victoria’s Secret is a little darker than most of the others.

Sweet lil’ Olive was spotted at JFK sweating profusely – wait! As anyone of her generation could tell you, women don’t sweat, they glisten – and avoiding the eyes of cops. So she was taken away for additional screening. The TSA officials found more under her girdle than they had bargained for, in the form of $73,000 worth of cocaine. She was taken away by the authorities and will likely face jail time.

The moral of this story is that you should not judge a book by its cover. Even the dusty ones that look old and boring can be a gold mine (which now gives new meaning to the expression digging for gold).

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Granny Arrested For Smuggling Cocaine in Her Girdle at JFK appeared first on Law Street.

Do you know what is lurking beneath the crawl space of your house? Even if you think you do, you should probably go check because you might find some surprising things. Recently, Dwayne Melton found this out the hard way. You see, buried beneath the belly of his house lay 13 tarantulas. As you might expect, he was horrified when he realized this. There were supposed to be 18 tarantulas hibernating under there. And he would not even have realized that five of his pets had been stolen if he hadn’t gotten a call from the exotic pet store from whence the arachnids had originally been purchased. See? This is why you should do regular crawl space investigations.

Courtesy of Giphy.

(Now, before I say more about this week’s weird story, I have a couple of disclaimers: 1. I went to college in Cobb County where the criminal in this story resides; and 2. I, like most middle school girls, had a pet tarantula when I was growing up. His name was Harry, and I was never so scared in my life as I was the day I learned tarantulas shed their skin, making what appears to a 12-year-old girl a second, cloned tarantula that showed up miraculously overnight.)

A lot of what happened here is unknown as the Cobb County man being charged is still at large; however, what is known is that Melton was going about his day, thinking everything was good and his tarantulas were hibernating peacefully deep below his house. But those spiders were not the only ones that lurked there. A spider thief had found his way to the spider’s den.

This would have been the perfect crime. Since the tarantulas were hibernating, Melton was not checking them as often as he might, and it is possible that by the time the theft was discovered, the thief would have been long gone. However, this particular robber made a fatal flaw that led to him not getting the payback he would have received and might also get him arrested: he went to the local exotic pet store, Animart, to try to sell the tarantulas.

This is something that should go without saying, but I see now that it does, in fact, have to be said: if you steal an exotic pet from someone who is clearly a collector/breeder, do not go to the local exotic pet store to sell them. Go out of town for that.

If a pet is exotic, that probably means it is not as common a household pet, which means that someone who purchased 18 of them from a store is probably a pretty well-known client. Of course, Melton could have gone to another store or purchased them out of town or any number of other things, but why risk it? Make the chance of you getting caught that much lower and just go three towns over or something.

Not doing this is, at least partly, what got this man caught. (I don’t know enough about the tarantula trade to confidently say that no exotic pet store would find it suspicious to have a person try to sell it five tarantulas at once. However, if it wasn’t for the fact that the store knew the owner, I have to imagine it is much less likely this plan would have been foiled.)

When the thief took the animals to Animart, they looked at them, thought they might be Molten’s, and bought them for $60. Does it seem like a life of crime might be for you if money is the result? Well, since the spiders were worth about $60 each, it was not such a good payday for this man.

After the sale, the store called Molten and told him they thought they had his pets and asked him to come ID them (which shows this guy knew what he was doing in the spider world, because to me, one tarantula looks exactly like the one next to it–especially when the one next to it is actually the shell of his old tarantula skin that had been shed). He rushed home to check on his other 13 spiders and found them safe in their containers.

Courtesy of Giphy.

So there you have it, if you want to get rid of your spider problems in a more humane way, just cross your fingers and hope you have a spider thief lurking somewhere underneath your home.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tarantula Thief Wanted in Georgia appeared first on Law Street.

Elrey “Bud” Runion, 69, and his wife, June, 66, went on Craigslist looking to finally purchase their dream car, a 1966 Ford Mustang convertible. That dream sadly turned into a nightmare after the missing Georgia couple was found dead on Monday, both shot in the head.

Two bodies found near car of a couple who went missing while checking out a Craigslist listing http://t.co/vttIorV7zHpic.twitter.com/bM0XYGaQXp

— Sky News (@SkyNews) January 27, 2015

Ronnie “Jay” Towns Jr., 28, who was the owner of the phone that last sent messages to the Runions’ phone, turned himself in to the police and has been officially charged with murder and armed robbery.

Ronnie Adrian Towns has been charged with malice murder after shooting the Marietta couple he lured from Craigslist. pic.twitter.com/IzQ6vxa8E2

— Everything Georgia (@GAFollowers) January 27, 2015

According to CBS, Bud had posted an ad on Craiglist looking for the specific type of Mustang, and the suspect responded saying he had one for sale, sending the couple photos. The Runions were later reported missing after leaving their home in an Atlanta suburb to drive 200 miles across the state to buy the vintage car from Towns.

The Telfair County Sheriff’s office Facebook page says they found the 2003 GMC Envoy owned by Mr. and Mrs. Runion submerged in a lake, without revealing exactly where said lake was. Police suspect Towns lured the couple into the woods, attempted to rob the two before killing them.

Shortly before Towns turned himself in Telfair County Sheriff Chris Steverson  told CNN:

Early on in the investigation, we did contact Mr. Towns, and we did interview him and by the information he provided, we found it to be false and deceptive. After we interviewed him, our efforts to contact him were unsuccessful. Today we’ve contacted his family, and they’ve been helpful in locating him.

In a Telfair County court Tuesday, Towns waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and a judge denied his bail.

Ronnie Towns Sr.  told a CNN affiliate WSB on Tuesday that he helped convince his son to turn himself in.

He said, ‘Daddy, I ain’t had nothing to do with this.’ It ain’t Jay. I don’t believe he did it.

This isn’t the first time Craigslist has been in the news for a high profile murder case. The website made headlines when Philip Markoff, the infamous “Craigslist Killer”, was arrested in 2009 after allegedly robbing and killing Julissa Brisman. Markoff later committed suicide in jail while awaiting his trial. There have also been other incidences of Craigslist-related killings, often robberies gone wrong. Check out our “Killers of Craigslist” slideshow here.

Whether or not Towns will be found guilty remains unknown, but it seems like this tragic case has ended up with the correct suspect in custody.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Craigslist Crime: Suspect Charged With Murder of Georgia Couple appeared first on Law Street.

The national attitude towards pot has been evolving for some time now. Marijuana has now officially been decriminalized in a number of states, and even legalized in two: Oregon and Washington. But even as our national view towards marijuana changes, our misperceptions don’t necessarily follow suit. This split has led to a couple funny stories making the national news this week.

One directly relates to those aforementioned stereotypes. A video in Ankeny, Iowa has been making its rounds on the internet. In it, a police officer tries to search a driver’s car, because apparently, people who play disc golf also smoke weed.

Basically, the driver was stopped for an equipment violation, and the officer warns the driver about headlight use. Then he saw something horrifying and totally weed-related in the car. It wasn’t drugs, it wasn’t paraphernalia, it was…a disc golf bag!

The officer goes on to interrogate the stopped driver about the relationship between disc golf and pot. After that exchange goes back and forth for a few minutes, the officer says, “you understand you’re free to go and everything but you wouldn’t have a problem with me looking through your car?” The man, of course, replies no, because that’s both unreasonable and illegal. The officer then tries to imply that because he won’t let his car be searched, the driver in question does have weed in the car. Throughout the entire exchange both men involved stayed relatively calm and pleasant, despite their clear disagreement and frustration. Most importantly, the driver was right to refuse the car search–according to Drake Law Professor Robert Rigg:

The Iowa Supreme Court has held that under the Iowa constitution you can’t convert an equipment violation stop into a general search. and any consent that would have been given would have been invalid in any event.

The video footage really is worth a full listen, if for hilarity purposes only:

In a completely separate incident, but definitely equally amusing story, a man in Georgia had his garden raided last week because he was growing something almost as deadly as disc golf–okra. Police were using helicopters to survey for marijuana, when they saw what they thought was pot in the Atlanta man’s garden. They showed up at his door, heavily armed and with a K-9 unit. They eventually discovered that the plants were not marijuana, apologized, and left.

It turned out to be okra, which like marijuana is a green plant, with leaves. Unlike marijuana, okra is really delicious when deep fried, and a popular vegetable in many dishes in the southern United States.

Obviously, these are both totally silly stories. But they also are telling, at least in the sense that in these two cases, police resources were used for what ended up being kind of ridiculous incidences. Yes, marijuana use should not be encouraged in places where it is illegal, but there’s also something to be said for making mountains out of molehills. Interrogating a man for carrying a bag of frisbees, or bringing a K-9 unit to deal with a man who was just growing veggies seems like a bit of overkill. As our nation changes its views on marijuana, seemingly state by state, it seems more and more likely that these kinds of disconnects and misperceptions will happen. So the moral of these stories: hide your frisbees and okra, they may not be worth the trouble.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Taber Andrew Bain via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Frisbees and Okra: The New Gateway Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Friday, which means that yet again we’ve had a week full of weird arrests. From stupid criminals, to equally stupid cops, it’s been a wild week!

[SlideDeck2 id=26091 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

Prison officials are struggling to stop the violence that plagues Georgia’s state prisons, and the deplorable conditions that Georgian prisoners are experiencing have begun to creep beyond the cell walls. The numbers alone are shocking. Since 2010, 33 prisoners and one officer have been killed by prisoners in Georgia, according to a report released by the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR). The number of homicides committed by prisoners in Georgia’s state prisons has tripled since 2004. Georgia has seen more homicides in its state prisons in one year than other states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky have each had in the last 10 years. Who’s to say that kind of behavior will cease when these perpetrators are released?

Victims of these often-fatal attacks are considered lucky if they survive. CNN recently reported that Georgia’s prisoners regularly face being stabbed, burned, raped, and dismembered. When a prisoner under attack shouts for help, the victim’s pleas usually fall on deaf ears. For the most part, sympathy is lacking for those prisoners subject to violence while serving time, so advocacy for change is hard to muster. But what the public needs to understand is the lasting effects this violence has on society once the prisoners are released. The report highlights this point:

Prisons are supposed to provide rehabilitation. But violent prisons teach and breed violence. Further, since about one third of people in the GDC [Georgia Department of Corrections] are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, the dangerous conditions in Georgia prisons threaten those who have committed violent crimes and those with no history of violence alike.

The report lists the legal standards against violence in prisons and tries to pinpoint the root causes:

• Supervision of prisoners is dangerously inadequate.
• Prisoners have access to lethal weapons that are either smuggled in, or fabricated using items found at the prison.
• Some cell door locks have been left broken for years.
• Gangs have filled a security vacuum and control many prison resources.
• Prisoners have access to a steady supply of cell phones and smart phones.
• Protective custody procedures are inadequate, and prison officials ignore threats to prisoners’ safety.

According to the SCHR report, prison officials are in violation of laws protecting prisoners if they knowingly disregard violence and make no attempts at halting imminent danger. Furthermore, some prison officials are directly involved in the smuggling of contraband inside prison walls. My colleague Alexandra Stembaugh wrote about similar problems in the war on drugs behind bars. It’s clear that we need tougher consequences for culprits to curb this kind of corruption.

Some of the most violent prisons in Georgia include Baldwin State Prison, Smith State Prison, and Hays State Prison. At Baldwin, countless attacks were carried out uninterrupted. One man was beaten, tied up, had scalding water poured on his groin, and a broom handle shoved up his rectum. No officer came to his rescue until he stumbled to the exit with both eyes swollen shut and his face covered in blood. This incident was neither a freak accident nor a rare occurrence. According to the SCHR report:

In case after case, attacks on men at Baldwin start and finish without anyone on the prison staff knowing they are happening. GDC reports have repeatedly documented incidents in which officers find out about an assault only after prisoner-witnesses report it, after the victim manages to escape, or when officers find a man injured on the ground.

Still lacking sympathy? Take into account the 33 percent of prisoners who were incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. Then take a look at your tax dollars, which are supposedly used for “maintaining” those prisons. The GDC Annual Report for 2013 showed the total funds spent in the fiscal year exceeded $1 billion, 97 percent of which came from state funding. Such a large amount of money is spent on this small percentage of the population, so why are violence and rape so prominent in Georgia’s jails?

Maybe it’s the serious lack of supervision in these prisons, which allowed locks to remain broken for several years. Maybe it’s the amount of influence gangs have–in some prisons the gang affiliates are able to choose the living assignments. Maybe prison officials fear their lives because so many prisoners have access to lethal weapons, drugs, and outside connections. But something must be done to stop this epidemic. The Pew Research Center reported that in Georgia prisons “the average offender released in 2009 served 3.2 years in custody, 75 percent more than the average offender released in 1990.” That means criminals serving longer sentences in deplorable conditions have more time to adopt violent tendencies.

Despite all the GDC’s efforts to rehabilitate their inmates, the constant violence plaguing Georgia prisons trumps their progress. I’m on board with the SCHR–the Supreme Court needs to investigate the GDC and get an inside look at Georgia prisons. Put an end to the senseless, brutal violence. Stop the torture. Do something to put those tax dollars to use. I’m not defending criminals–they landed themselves on a metal cot in an 8 by 10 cell. But I also don’t think they deserve having every last human right stripped from them. And the last thing Georgia’s citizens need is to fear their releases. Better regulations in prisons paired with successful rehabilitation programs could help break this horrible cycle.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Christian Senger via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Georgia’s State Prisons: Breeding Grounds for Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Bonbar via Wikimedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Schools for Healthcare Law: #5 Georgia State University College of Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a new Georgia gun law went into effect, despite 70 percent of Georgians disagreeing with the law. The law is officially called the Safe Carry Protection Act, but is better known as the “Guns Everywhere” law. Sadly, its nickname is only a slight exaggeration.

So what exactly is this new law, and what’s in it that’s so controversial? Well here are the highlights:

1)   Those who have a license to carry a concealed weapon can take guns into places of business including, restaurants and bars, although these businesses can technically opt out.

2)   School officials and appointed staff members can carry guns in schools and religious leaders can allow guns in their places’ of worship.

3)   Guns can be carried up until the security checkpoint in the airport.

4)   Guns can be carried into government buildings that do not have metal detectors, with the exception of the Georgia Capitol Building.

5)   No individual, including a police officer, can ask to see a person’s permit to carry unless they have cause.

Let’s walk through this incredibly far-reaching law’s many problems. First of all, restaurant and bar owners are very concerned about how this law will affect business. Many bar owners have come to the very logical conclusion that providing alcohol to someone who is carrying a gun is not a bright idea. But in order to opt out of this law, bar owners must place an official sign outside the restaurant saying guns are not allowed. This makes owners concerned that gun rights groups may protest their business if they ban guns. Alice Johnson, the director of Georgians for Gun Safety, says, “bar owners will be targeted for boycotts and all kinds of public relations problems.” She also believes that bars will face lawsuits for not allowing guns. Georgia’s bars are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can either serve people with guns alcohol, or risk losing business.

But my favorite logical fallacy of this law is the fact that you cannot ask to see a person’s permit to carry a concealed weapon without cause. This means a person must be doing something suspicious for even the police to demand to see a permit. I could go buy a gun and carry it around with me in Georgia and as long as I don’t do anything ridiculously stupid, like wave my gun in someone’s face, the police would not be able to ask for my permit to carry. This is effectively an “anyone can carry a concealed weapon if you aren’t a moron” law. Of course, if you are a moron or an actual dangerous person, by the time you commit said suspicious activity that will allow cause, the damage will most likely already be done. A man has already drawn his weapon in a shop after a fellow customer asked to see his permit.

There is so much more stupidity in this law that I could discuss, but I think you get the picture. So, I am going to move on the political aspects of this law. There is speculation that this bill was put to a vote to get Jason Carter, the Democratic challenger for governor, to vote against a gun rights bill. Carter did not take the bait, and voted with the overwhelming majority of the legislature to pass the bill. This meant that current Republican Governor Nathan Deal had to sign it, or appear to be less pro-gun than his Democratic challenger. The bill was voted down three times before it got passed, lending some credence to this theory. So there you have it, this new gun law may exist just because of a political game of chicken.

Seventy percent of Georgians being against a law that expands gun rights is almost unfathomable, unless of course, the law goes way too far. Let’s face it, that’s exactly what’s happening in Georgia right now.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Boris van Hoytema via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guns Everywhere: New Law Takes Effect in Georgia appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Hump Day, folks!

Have you had your mid-afternoon pickmeup yet? I fucking hope so, because I’m not easing you into this today. We’re just going to cut right to the chase.

We’re talking about rape, today, folks.

Prepare to be simultaneously infuriated and irrationally happy.

About two weeks ago in Calhoun, Ga, it was prom night. The teenagers of Calhoun High School were pumped to get fancy and get down. Let’s all picture the jubilation of Footloose, for a moment, shall we?

Awesome. But post-prom, shit started to get a bit less Kevin Bacon and a bit more Steubenville, Ohio. At an after party — predictably held at a secluded cabin in the woods — nearly 30 students got super drunk. Things quickly spun out of control.

After several hours of heavy drinking, an 18-year-old woman found herself in a room with four of her male classmates, where she was allegedly gang-raped. The victim reported being unable to remember exactly who raped her, only recalling that it was multiple men, and that foreign objects were inserted into her vagina. The victim suffered severe internal injuries from the assault, including substantial, traumatic, vaginal tearing.

Cue feelings of shock and appall.

What the fuck is going on here, people? What. The. Actual. Fuck.

This is not the first time I’ve written about rape here at The F Word. In fact, I’ve written about rape a depressing amount. We’ve talked about the infamous Steubenville rape case, the reasons your rapist probably won’t be facing any consequences, and the fact that lawmakers in Michigan are forcing women to take out rape insurance.

The world is filled with fucking rape. This is news to no one.

But let’s take a moment and think about why in fuck’s name this shit keeps happening. Why are men consistently and violently forcing themselves onto unwilling women?

Because they feel fucking entitled, that’s why.

Awesome attitude, dude.

Alcohol and drugs and partying and short skirts — contrary to what Fox News and its ilk will have you believe — do not cause rape. Rape culture causes rape. It’s a culture that privileges men and other masculine folks as the arbiters of power to be wielded over an inferior class of women and feminine-presenting folks. It’s a culture that says “boys will be boys,” “penises have a mind of their own,” “men can’t control themselves.”

It’s a culture that tells women to carry pepper spray, to pull their skirts down, not to go out at night alone, not to drink, not to date.

It’s a culture that tells women not to live their lives freely, so as to avoid violent assault, all while giving men free reign to do whatever the fuck they want, consent be damned. This is a culture that tells men they own the streets. They own the world. And they own women’s bodies.

This guy. This guy all over the fuckin’ place.

We all know that this rape in Calhoun is no isolated incident. But let’s reiterate just how not isolated it is.

1 out of every 6 women in the U.S. has been the victim of sexual assault.

That’s a lot of fucking women. And those are just the ones who are reporting their experiences and being counted — if we take silent victims into account, the numbers soar higher. Not to mention all the men who get raped, all the trans folks, all the genderqueers who aren’t being counted because statisticians aren’t sure where to fit them into the equation.

Rape is a hugely, wildly pervasive problem, and its victims are paying a lifetime price.

But the rapists themselves? Ninety-seven percent of them will face no jail time at all. No consequences. No accountability. Nothing.

This is beyond disappointing.

Now, it’s important to note that the vast majority of men and masculine-presenting people are not rapists. All you “Not All Men!” devil’s-advocate-conversation-derailers, please save your breath. We are fully aware that not all men are violent, rapist fucks.

And this Calhoun case is living, breathing proof of that. It stands out from other recent high-profile rape cases — like Steubenville — in that the authorities have taken the victim’s allegations seriously, are pressing substantial charges against the alleged perpetrators, and have not carried out a gross, slut-shaming, rape-apologist smear campaign against the victim.

This is the part where we can all get irrationally happy. Authority figures simply doing their jobs shouldn’t be cause for shocked celebration, but it’s undeniably rare that a rape case gets handled appropriately. Bravo, Calhoun law enforcement! Thank you for rising to the level of our depressingly low bar! (I mean that in the most sincere, not-sarcastic way possible, I promise.)

But amid our relief that Calhoun seems to be doing things right, we can’t forget about why these things keep happening.

Those four high school boys gang-raped their classmate for the same reason Michigan legislators are forcing women to buy rape insurance. That’s the same reason Daisy Coleman’s house was burned to the ground after she tried to report her own rape. It’s also the same reason Elliot Rodger murdered six people in Santa Barbara after penning a manifesto about what a crime it was that women had failed to offer him their vaginas on a silver platter.

It’s because we live in a society that doesn’t teach men not to rape. It doesn’t expect men to treat women or their bodies with kindness and respect. It makes excuses for violent behavior, shifts blame to victims, and props up an overarching culture in which men feel entitled to a woman’s sexuality and bodily autonomy.

Not all men are rapists, murderers, misogynists, slut-shamers, or victim-blamers. But all men live in a world where they’re mostly allowed to be. And women? All of us get to live in fear of meeting the same fate as Daisy Coleman, or running into an Elliot Rodger — and then being blamed for our own irresponsibility for putting ourselves in a position to be harmed in the first place. Don’t believe me? Just ask #YesAllWomen. This shit is real.

So folks, let’s raise this bar. Let’s create a world where it’s not exciting to meet a man who doesn’t feel entitled to your body, or a cop who will take your rape case seriously. Let’s fashion a society where all people — regardless of their gender — can move through the world without the fear of violence and domination. Let’s do it together.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Parker via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post BREAKING: Cops in Georgia Are Taking a Rape Case Seriously appeared first on Law Street.

What do churches, schools, and bars all have in common? Once a new law is signed in Georgia, you have the potential to legally carry guns in all of them. It’s known as the “Safe Carry Protection Act,” and a lot of people are talking about what it allows.

Among other things, it allows people to bring guns into government buildings, churches (if the congregation wants them), airports (not past security), and bars (should the owner allow it). Governor Nathan Deal hasn’t signed the bill yet, but most people expect him to do so without issue.

It also allows for officials to designate teachers or administrators at public and private schools to have weapons within school safety zones. According to the bill, local school boards would be responsible for deciding who within their districts are allowed to carry guns. Not law enforcement, not the state legislature but the school boards. How does that make sense?

The debate between whether or not expanding where people can carry guns has gone on for years, and will continue after this bill. But will this vast expansion help encourage dialogue about the topic, or polarize people against each other further?

Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by Gabrielle Giffords, put out a video condemning the bill for allowing “guns everywhere.”

And the sentiments of Giffords and other pro-gun control groups seem to be reflective of the people in the state. One poll by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found 70% of voters disagreed with allowing guns on college campuses and in churches- two provisions some lawmakers hoped to include in this bill (lawmakers ultimately decided to not include guns on college campuses in the bill).

But politicians in Georgia obviously supported it. Governor Deal is up for re-election and has been endorsed by the NRA since 2010. As a Republican, maybe that isn’t so surprising. But consider the fact Deal’s Democratic opponent, Jason Carter (grandson of Jimmy), also voted for the bill. If the people of Georgia don’t agree with the ideas behind the bill, what’s the motivation?

Without being too cynical, the NRA, which lobbied for this specific bill to pass, and other pro-gun lobbies probably have a lot to do with it. There are also a lot of well-intentioned people who say that in the wakes of tragedies like Sandy Hook, we need more people with guns, not less. A consistent narrative relayed by pro-gun groups is that people who will register their guns and follow these laws aren’t the same people who shoot up schools.

But there is language in the bill that would restrict law enforcement for stopping people to check their gun permits: “A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.”

So even if a police officer suspects someone has a weapon illegally, there’s no way to check in accordance with the law. Police will either have to pin an additional charge on the person they want to check, or just ignore the situation altogether. This seems to discount the argument that citizens shouldn’t worry since only law-abiding gun owners will carry them. If there isn’t a provision to discern between the two, how will anyone know the difference? What would stop someone from carrying a gun without a license  if they’re aware the police can’t check it anyone?

Creating legislation this broad in one fell swoop doesn’t seem like the best idea for pro-gun advocates. Often faced with criticisms of being too reactive and far-reaching, a bill like this doesn’t do much, if anything to change public sentiment on the issue. Just because the Georgia legislature had the votes to change all of these laws doesn’t mean that they should have. Instead, it could have started small, showing a dedication to ensuring the safest pro-gun options for the state rather than the broadest. Compromises and “baby steps” like this could have helped decrease the backlash the bill is now facing across the country.

[Bill Text] [NYT] [NRA] [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oh, Georgia: Potential Law Allows Guns [Almost] Everywhere appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks! You’re almost there. Breathe with me. Friday’s coming.

In the meantime, let’s get to our biweekly session of bitching about the GOP, shall we? Today, we’re talking about school lunches. And poor kids. And how Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia is a gigantic asshole.

Here’s what happened. Across the nation, kids from families whose income levels are below 130 percent of the poverty line can receive free school lunches. Kids from families with income levels between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for reduced lunch prices. This is news to no one.

Trust me on this. My awesome wife teaches in Newark, one of the poorest cities in New Jersey. Literally all of the kids at her school get free lunch. Free lunch for low income kids is nothing new.

Said no one.

Anyway! Rep. Kingston decided to make news out of something that’s not new — a common talent for many GOP rainmakers. This week, he went on the record saying that poor kids should NOT get free lunch — oh no! The blasphemy!

Instead, he made the following suggestions:

“Why don’t we have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria — and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people — getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch.”

Oh my gosh I CAN’T. I cannot. What are you doing, Rep. Kingston? Really.

Friends is on my level today.

Let’s start with the first and most obvious issue with your solution to a non-problem: children are not possessors of money. They don’t work. That’s what being a child means. So, really, they all get free lunches. Every single one of them. Even the richest of rich kids are getting a free lunch. Because it’s not their money that paid for it. It’s their parents’ money.

Take me for example. I was a solidly middle-class child. My parents, being the health nuts that they are, were not big fans of the idea of me eating mystery meat in my elementary school cafeteria. So, every day, they dutifully packed me a brown bag lunch. I got a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread and a handful of cookies, virtually every single day. For me, that lunch was free.

I didn’t pay for it. I didn’t even know that food cost money. Or that when my parents went to work, they were paid in money. I kind of just thought working was a thing that grownups had to do — the same way kids had to go to school — and all of the other stuff like food and housing was just magically bestowed upon people who followed the rules.

Baby me did not understand how much this leather jacket probably cost my big sister.

Clearly, I was a naïve child.

But! There was a kernel of truth in my naivety. For me, food really didn’t cost money. It just appeared in my brown bag every day, as if by magic. Nowadays, as a precariously middle-class adult who has to purchase food before it lands in my brown bag (I’m still packing a whole wheat PB&J for work, I’ll admit it), I’m fully aware that food was free when I was a kid.

I’m even more aware of it when my now gray-haired parents take me out for lunch.

My reaction whenever my parents invite me out to dinner.

Anyway! All children get free lunch. They aren’t working the night-shift to pay for their sandwiches. So, your argument is already inherently flawed, Rep. Kingston.

Moving right along. What is this obsession with punishing poor people for being poor? Seriously. The GOP is fixated on it. When you suggest forcing children to sweep the floors in order to earn their lunch, you’re talking about child labor. That’s bad enough, but when you’re only suggesting the poor kids participate, you’re talking about a caste system.

You’re talking about a world where rich kids learn early on that only certain people sweep floors. Namely, not them. You’re teaching them that someone else will always clean up after them. Someone else will always have to beg for their scraps.

Then, you wind up with kids like this boy, who killed 4 people because of pathological rich kid syndrome.

And, you’re teaching the poor kids that they’re the ones who need to beg for those scraps. Because of the social standing of their family — which they have zero control over — poor kids will understand themselves to be inherently less than. That’s a traumatic and debilitating lesson to learn at such a formative age.

Finally, there’s the looming issue at hand — the solution that Rep. Kingston is obviously hinting at, but isn’t explicitly articulating.

He’s saying that it would be better if these kids didn’t get a free school lunch at all. If we HAVE to give it to them, at least make them work for it, he’s saying. But really, his best case scenario is equally expensive lunches for all.

Folks, this is a classic case of a Republican who lacks empathy. It’s an alarmingly common quality among headline-making GOP’ers.

Where my wife teaches, all of the students qualify for free lunch. Every single one of them. These kids are poor. They don’t have the luxury to grow up naïve like I did. They know food costs money because they don’t have any of it. As in, neither food nor money.

For many of her kids, lunch is the only meal they eat. They hardly eat at all on weekends. Why? Because they’re poor. They can’t afford food. And the little food they do have at home, they give to their baby brothers and sisters.

My wife’s students are good kids. They’re smart and loving and talented, and hysterically funny. And they deserve to fucking eat.

So, Rep. Kingston? Shut the fuck up.

Stop talking about child labor, and a (not really) new caste system, and the idea that poor kids shouldn’t be fed lunch on the school’s dime. Stop talking out of your ass, and start feeding some children.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Philippe Put via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP to Hungry Kids: You Don’t Work Hard Enough appeared first on Law Street.