Georgia lawmakers push bad bill in response to Halloween sign lawsuit

Viewing 25 reply threads
  • Author
    • #69494 Reply

      By Fred . . . Last October, in a lawsuit that was initiated and financed by NARSOL, Federal Judge Marc T. Treadwell ruled against Sheriff Long and oth
      [See the full post at: Georgia lawmakers push bad bill in response to Halloween sign lawsuit]

    • #69515 Reply

      The legislators voting for this are the same type of people that put Jews, and others, in Ghettos in 1930’s Germany and the same type of people that denied the right to vote for women and minorities, voted against the Civil Rights Amendment, committed genocide of native americans, and used the bible to promote slavery (not all christians or religious folks did, so give me a break.). Also, Covid-19 could be our friend in this area.

    • #69514 Reply

      Placing signs in a registrants yard is nothing short of targeting a human being AND his family for violent action towards them ! It’s Wrong on every level. If a person has spent time in prison they deserve a second chance to prove themselves! Please don’t target anyone.

    • #69524 Reply

      How can they make a bill to legalize compelled speech this should not be possible.

    • #69532 Reply
      Sylvester Jackson

      There are no need for such an act because all it does is continue cause a threat to those on the registry. And further deny individuals to live in peace.

    • #69550 Reply
      BM – @D

      D – I’m with you… This may pass, but it is nothing more than compelled speech. Could also be trespassing, destruction (defacing) of private property? Not sure you can go to anyones home and put up whatever you want on their lawn. Huge 1st Amendment violation IMO.

    • #69566 Reply

      Fred I have to give credit were credit is due as this article came up at the right time about these signs. One person talks about the Covid-19 epidemic which is alarming most. D talks about compelled speech which we all learned all about in high school but it might be changed from my graduation in 73 for all I know but tresspassing is trespassing.

      Even hiking on a mountain or side trail is an offense with any sign posted as that is a person’s individual right. Protection is protection. Government is a bit tacky on that one or who’s status is more important if one wants to pin a sign of caution or warning . Note in the article: State representatives all republicans if that is any bearing on the issue.

      One could even go as far as the writings of Thomas Jefferson in this ordeal of the registry and the constutitional or is much of this registry a controversial issue. Dad was a corporate accountant/bookeeper and he had to know about much of business law also after the banks closed down in the depression days since the opportunity of going to work for a utility company. It just might surprise one .

      This Covid-19 thing just may open a lot of understanding with its effect either good or bad. I can assure one government is not going to lose any money or sleep over this and thats just a personal opinion.

      One more point to note Compelled Speech can be the same as compelled intimidation as in plea deals as in a lot of case’s. Glad you brought that up D. One can call it an act of grace or mercy but the truth comes out in the long run. So were does that lead to or does it really take two to tango or who is compromising one’s conscious or playing on it with this deceitful evil factor. Food for thought.

    • #69591 Reply

      Do you think the politicians give a care? They want what will get them the popular vote at election time. What negatively impacts us does not and has never and never will figure into how they legislate.

    • #69590 Reply

      I support the lawsuit NARSOL filed in GA over the sheriff posting signs in registrants’ yards when they lacked statutory authority to do so. However, this lawsuit also gave them the idea. Here’s how it goes: OK, you’re suing my Sheriffs over acting outside statutory authority. That’s an easy fix! We’ll just amend our laws to GIVE THEM ALL THE AUTHORITY THEY NEED TO POST SIGNS. Problem solved. (from the state’s point of view).

      Again I ask my pessimistic question: Why have courts when politicians can simply legislate their way around an unfavorable ruling? The politicians will send this bill to the governor’s desk and it will get signed into law. It will have a presumption of constitutionality and the whole litigation process will have to start all over again from scratch.

      Did I miss anything? Am I wrong?

    • #69617 Reply

      So when do we need to apply there Scarlet letter to our clothes, our vehicles, or anything else we own. At what point is it enough. May God Almighty have mercy on their souls and ours.

    • #69616 Reply

      @TN that’s about the size of it and you summed it up pretty good and NARSOL is going in the right direction. Theirs pros and cons in everything but when justice goes above the status than its up to people like NARSOL and others to say .. Wait a minute.

    • #69623 Reply

      According to the DHS Memo on “How to prevent online harassment”:

      “What is doxxing?
      Doxxing refers to gathering an individual’s personally identifiable information (PII) and disclosing or posting it publicly, usually for malicious purposes such as public humiliation, stalking, identity theft, or targeting and individual for harassment.”

      More hypocrisy.

    • #69646 Reply
      Tim in WI

      Welcome to community policing. I wonder if flipping the script would be appropriate? Simply post a sign in the Sheriff’s yard.

      Sheriff X IS
      !Constitutionally Deficient!
      (case docket #)

      I’m sure you’d be charged for it.

    • #69663 Reply


      Legislatures and Congress can pass any law they want but it must pass Constitutional muster when challenged in court, or pass the ideology of those in robes on the bench at least even if questionable in Constitutionality.

      The other thing is this: legislatures know these are going to be challenged in court most likely anyway, so they can make the road to getting the law/action knocked down as difficult as possible and with the most possible cred they can get for being electable. It really is the bully in the schoolyard pushing around others.

    • #69673 Reply

      Response to WC_TN

      Your thoughts are 100% on-target

      Can any be so naïve to believe, let alone state there is a “chance” of HB 720 becoming law? Of course it shall become law; few politicians wish to be seen as being soft on the dreaded Sex Offender. To suggest otherwise is insulting.

      Common sense dictates state legislatures shall fabricate law to sidestep favorable court rulings for sex offenders. … and again, to state otherwise is naïve or foolish or both. While the practice of placing signs is reprehensible, in truth, few GA registrants were saddled with this burden. Numerous GA sheriffs stated they would not place signs unless state law mandated doing so… state law shall mandate signs soon.

      After discharging my prison sentence a decade ago, I have graduated college with bachelors and am working towards a graduate level degree, live a quiet life, reside in a neighborhood where no children trick-or-treat, and have a good rapport with my neighbors and the local sheriff. I have a relationship with a good woman, who, like many reading this page, is a registrant; she is “not happy” about the hornet’s nest being poked. She too has a quiet life with a good relationship in her neighborhood and the sheriff of the county of her residence. But now, our hard work and peace are in jeopardy for the “greater good.”

      Why poke sticks at the hornet’s nest when so few were being stung by the hornets? Now, we are at the mercy of NARSOL making good on their bold suppositions after they have stirred the hornet’s nest of legislators. I wonder, will those who poked the hornet’s nest share the humiliation and likely harassment the signs shall impose?

      Instead of poking the hornet’s nest, why not concentrate resources and efforts upon the registry itself? Is not the registry, in and of itself, a far greater evil? I ask, if it were not for the registry, would Halloween signs be an issue?

      Once again, WC_TN is spot-on with his thoughts.

    • #69682 Reply

      How can compelled speech be legal?

      Example: You contract Corona virus. You are placed on in-home quarantine until you get well and are no longer deemed contagious. A sign is placed in your front yard that says, “Do not cross this boundary. This house is under quarantine.”

      That is forced speech and it is perfectly legal.

      It would be perfectly constitutional if legislators would NARROWLY TAILOR a Halloween sign for registrants that stipulates IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE ACCOSTED A CHILD WHO CAME KNOCKING ON THEIR DOOR DURING TRICK-OR-TREAT DURING THE HALLOWEEN SEASON AND THAT THE SIGNAGE WOULD ONLY BE DISPLAYED FOR THE HOURS OF TRICK-OR-TREATS AND THEN IMMEDIATELY BE REMOVED. That is a narrowly tailored law that targets only relevant registrants (WHICH I KNOW SUCH A REGISTRANT DOES NOT EXIST). The problem with these Halloween sign laws is it’s one size fits all.

      Our legislators are NOT inclined to sit down and put the effort into narrowly tailoring such laws and maybe they too know that to PROPERLY NARROWLY TAILOR A LAW WOULD MEAN IT WOULD HARDLY EVER BE USED.

    • #69685 Reply

      @Tim, if NARSOL had waited until almost all of the Sheriffs had implemented what the GA Sheriff’s association had recommended (after all, they’re the ones that printed those signs….) then even without statutory authority, the courts would have viewed it as “common practice” and as Larry explained on “Registry Matters”, the judges would have asked, “Where were you with this challenge when this practice first appeared? Why did you wait until now?” and would very likely have resulted in GA registrants being handed a defeat. This lawsuit was designed to “NIP THIS IN THE BUD BEFORE IT COULD BECOME SO WIDE-SPREAD THAT THE COURTS WOULD RECOGNIZE IT AS COMMON PRACTICE.

      The only challenge needed to this new measure when it gets signed into law is to remove that part of the original complaint which stated sheriffs were acting outside statutory authority. The preliminary injunction still has so much damning verbiage regarding compelled speech of this nature that it’s a virtual roadmap to victory. This law just adds another step to the finish line.

      A preliminary injunction against a law like this is NOT easy to get by any stretch and on those rare occasions when a preliminary injunction is granted, IT IS PRETTY MUCH A JUDGE-ISSUED ROADMAP TO FINAL VICTORY. All the court’s reasoning for granting injunctive relief is right there and those will be the very reasons the prevailing party will continue to be the prevailing authority when all is said and done. The judge’s reasoning for granting the injunction will be the reasoning behind the state’s defeat at every level of appeal.

    • #69699 Reply


      Hey there… great response.
      I grasp the legal arguments you presented my friend, truly do and they are sound. Yet, my point is the collateral fallout upon those who committed no crime and yet must suffer the shame and humiliation of having a sign placed in their yard. Individuals like my mother, age 83 and in poor health…. signs in the yard of a house she has owned for 35-years.

      There are many others in a similar place, not unlike the original case heard in Macon .. “I get it” … yet, how can we comfort the elderly who suffer the consequences from collateral fallout with “the greater good” logic? Please, anyone have the answer for that?

      Be well my friend,


    • #69702 Reply

      Reply @WC_TN #3

      Hey there…. forgot to mention a couple things.

      Yup, I am well aware of the GA Sheriff’s Association stance on the signs and do not argue that point. Yet, not all Sheriffs agreed with the association. I have yet to be associated with a union where all members are in concert with one another … frequently, only a slim margin separates the majority from the minority in such matters.

      Yes, I am well aware of the “road map” laid forth my Judge Marc Treadwell in late October of last year. I have read it multiple times and downloaded it mere minutes after the Middle District Court in Macon published it; I intended to sit in on the ruling that day, but fell ill and could not attend.

      You mentioned “Registry Matters.” Again, I am aware of the podcast and have listened in a time or two. While it gives sound insight most of the time, but for other reasons, it is not my “cup of tea.”

      Still though, the collateral fallout upon the heads of innocents is my primary concern(s). Until others can show me where innocents, like my mother, will not suffer harm, even if for only an instant, then personal views remain adamant.

      Be well my friend,

    • #69703 Reply
      Will Allen

      I live in Georgia and I am listed on their hit list. I don’t think HB 720 will affect me but even if it did, it is absolutely correct for every single American to fight against these signs, used anywhere, against anyone. I am really tired of people who keep saying that we should not be fighting things because it will negatively affect them personally. I have heard plenty of people arguing about the upcoming tiered Registry in CA or the fights in MI say things like “of course we need Registries, as long as I’M NOT LISTED on it”. That is beyond outrageous. The people who I want to be affected by these laws are the people who will not fight for other people.

      And let’s just keep the main fact straight here as well – the sheriffs that have already tried to post the signs are certified morons. Anyone who thinks these signs are needed is an idiot. And the signs send the exact WRONG message, which is that parents or whomever can just watch out for some signs and big government has got you protected in any useful way. Exact wrong message. If these idiot sheriffs or the criminal legislators cared about protecting children, as they incessantly lie, they would pass a law that would require that adults supervise all trick-or-treating children. But nope, that would require too much accountability and actually caring about reality. So much easier just to pull their stunts.

      These moron sheriffs have no business living in a free country either, let alone dreaming they could play any role in “protecting” anyone. They are a danger to all good Americans. They are harassers who have sub-average I.Q.s who simply cannot stop harassing People Forced to Register, their spouses, and their children. So they, their spouses, and their children deserve the same. They are not humans that good Americans need have any concern for.

      Further, if there is a bigger group of criminal idiots in all of Georgia than the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, I’d like to see who they are. What a pathetic bunch they are. They are an enemy to all citizens and we should ALL work to reduce the power of all government in Georgia and their law enforcement criminals. All citizens should work to keep them dysfunctional and ineffective. We need to vote these big government idiots out. Certainly always vote to keep money and other resources from them. We see how they waste it.

      The criminal regime can put a huge sign in my yard if they like. I don’t give the first f*ck what people think. Got over that after just a few years of being on the hit list. So they can put their sign there. I promise I will make them pay 10x any problems, effort, or anything else it causes me. I promise their sign will be 100% ineffective. But it won’t just be worthless, I promise I will make sure it is a lot worse than that. That is the proper, moral, American response to such idiotic, anti-American signs.

      People who are against Registries need to stop hiding or feeling shame. “People” who think these signs are acceptable need to be told exactly where they can shove them.

    • #69776 Reply

      When you drive down the highway in your town and you see a cop speeding for no reason other than to get to lunch or talking away on his or her cell phone, call them in, find out their names, look them up, and put a sign in their yards that identifies THEIR illegal behaviors and see how they like it or better yet, start getting your hands on use of force reports and start singling out officers who submit excessive reports or get brutality accusations that are backed up with video proof. If you see town politicians partaking of the drink too much, post signage identifying them as a town drunk. They wouldn’t think it’s so danged funny and cool then! They’d be the FIRST ONES crying foul!

    • #69825 Reply

      This is truly an unnecessary law. I do pray that our voices and those that support us reach out to strike down this attempt to circumvent the progress NARSOL has made in this matter. We must be diligent, focused, prepared and use our wits about us, and certainly maintain our Constitutional rights as citizens and human beings.

    • #69962 Reply

      They make the laws because they found out they have the power to do so. Armed with “public safety” and a L&O/CSI programmed public they have carte blanche to utilize and manipulate any and every scenario to justify their agenda.

    • #69967 Reply
      Tim in WI

      More often than not it is states DOJ that actually drafts the bill to be adopted.
      The AG always had some say in implementing the law hence their input ( admin branch) is in play from the onset. Packingham v NC proves ” constitutional concerns” as normally preemptive ( Smith V Alaska03), has been compromised by the input of administrations of the competitive bicameral disdain for sex deviants supported by the need for corporate rent seeking of market share via campaign donations. In my state cerca92-95 most of the federal domestic policy outlay from OMNIBUS 94 were already being hand fed by state AGs to state congresses some months before the fed legislation was signed. Many AGs were already laying groundwater by eliminating criminal privacy protections in statutes. Many chapters of WI law were altered during the period James E. Doyle (D) held office first as AG under the Tommy Thompson administration then as Governor himself.

    • #70706 Reply
      Alexander C. Miles

      If that is what most constituents want, it is what they will get. Basic rules of a democracy.

    • #70799 Reply
      Will Allen

      @Alexander C. Miles:

      That is only true to an extent. I expect you’ve heard of “tyranny of the majority” before, yes? Even if 80% of the U.S. population wants to do X to People Forced to Register (PFR), X can’t be done if it crosses certain lines, like the constitution. I’m not a “punishment” expert so I don’t know all those lines, but I expect there are a lot.

      The real problem is that “most constituents” are scumbags. They are stupid, self-righteous, self-entitled, arrogant, ignorant, spoiled, etc., etc., etc. you name it. The U.S. is full of stupid, hateful residents. Probably always has been. I never forget that it’s been well within my lifetime that these same residents were just so, so outraged that “coloreds” had the audacity to think they could share the same water fountains as the “good” people. Remember how “coloreds” needed the Green Book just to be able to travel and live? That isn’t PC any longer. But harassing PFRs is.


Viewing 25 reply threads
Reply To: Georgia lawmakers push bad bill in response to Halloween sign lawsuit
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">