“Our rights are being taken from us one at time…that’s what upsets me about this thing”

Fannin County Citizens came out in droves Tuesday night to protest a proposed Emergency Management ordinance, packing the third floor jury room in a rumbling mass. Commission Chair Bill Simonds told the crowd the meeting was a public hearing, so no vote would be made and they could begin their comments at anytime, by coming up to the podium. But, citizens started calling out requests for the ordinance to be read aloud. As such, City Clerk Rita Kirby read aloud the ordinance in its entirety from the podium. Following the reading, citizens lined up to the podium to make their comments.

Almost unanimously, the main concern for citizens was the unchecked authority the ordinance grants the chairman in the event of an emergency. In fact, the document only defines a state of emergency in ambiguous terms, leaving the interpretation of its definition to the chairman.

John Foster, the first to speak, also made another assumption about the document.

“This thing’s gotta be signed to get grant money from the state,”

he said. He went on to say he also opposed the section of the ordinance that grants the county the authority to enter upon a citizen’s private property. Here, Foster referenced the 2005 Katrina Flood in New Orleans. He said in the Katrina scenario, the police confiscated everyone’s guns.

“Well, then,”

he said,

“you didn’t have a way of protecting yourself from the bad guys.”

Citizen David Crawford also mentioned his opposition to the violation of property rights, in addition to the authority the county would have for illegal search and seizure.

“They could commandeer; they could take your property…If I got canned beans on my shelf to feed my family and they got a food shortage, they’ll come round and get my food.”

Crawford went on to mention the authority granted to the chairman to define the emergency, saying that in such a scenario the emergency could be actual or perceived. Underscoring Foster’s notion, he added that the ordinance was supported by GEMA (Georgia Emergency Management Agency) and was essentially tied to federal funding. Chris King, though, disputed this statement. King said his son works for GEMA. In a recent conversation with his son, his son said it was not supported by GEMA. Rather, he noted, the ordinance came down from ACCG (Association of County Commissioners of Georgia), an appointed, unelected organization.

Other concerns dealt with enforcement during periods of marshal law. According to the ordinance, if a state of emergency is declared, which can either come from the governor or the board of commissioner/chairman, marshal law would ensue. One citizen had concerns with the main section on page four, which deals with penalties, stating: Any person who violates any provision in this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment not exceeding 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each violation.

“Well,”

he said responding to this section,

“If they find you guilty of two or three misdemeanors, you’re going to wind up in jail for quite a long time without a jury of your peers deciding whether you’re guilty or not.”

Overall citizens did not feel the need for the ordinance, saying that the community helps each other in emergencies and times of need without such legislation. Additionally, overwhelmingly they felt the ordinance violates their individual rights.

“Our rights are being taken from us one at time,”

Lane Bishop said,

“That’s what upsets me about this thing…We need to oppose anything that is going to take our Constitutional Rights away from us and they are already being taken from us in Washington D.C.”

Another citizen put it more poignantly, saying,

“I spent a tour of duty in the 4th Marines Infantry. Based on this proposition, I just wasted my time.”

At the close of public comments, Chairman Simonds said there were some things in the ordinance that he didn’t like either, commenting that he wouldn’t like it either if someone came in his house and confiscated his guns.

“We’re not going to take this lightly, “

he said,

“Maybe we could get a committee together and look at some of this stuff and hash it out. There are some things in here that I don’t agree with. And we’re going to look at that and eliminate some.”

Early in the hearing, a citizen pointed out that nowhere in the ordinance does it state that its adoption is required. When Simonds brought up the committee, someone from the back of the room asked him why a committee was needed if the adoption of the ordinance was not required. Simonds could not confirm that the ordinance was required, only that it was given to the county by the ACCG.