COVINGTON, Ga. — A month ago, Covington’s city council held an impromptu discussion surrounding a noticeable uptick in gun-related incidents in public parks. The May 5 conversation centered largely around the legality of implementing gun restrictions in the parks. 

Toward the end of that meeting, the council concluded more research was necessary, but seemed to accept that any location-specific gun restriction would quickly be deemed illegal.

At the council’s June 2 meeting, they revisited the topic.

The agenda item, “Discussion of safety in city parks,” was once more spearheaded by Councilman Anthony Henderson, with new input from the Covington Police Department (CPD).

CPD efforts

Interim Chief Brent Fuesting kicked off the conversation with the department’s efforts to quell the park violence.

“I went back all the way to January 1, 2024, and there’s a total of 460 calls at all the parks combined,” Fuesting said. “Most of those calls are generated by officers, usually after hours for a suspicious person or if there’s a traffic stop in the general area.”

Fuesting said the CPD is already implementing measures to increase police presence in the parks. For one, they have obtained a schedule of all events taking place in the parks. 

“...do some concentrated patrols on those days when there’s more activity in the park,” Fuesting said. “Those will be foot patrols and bike patrols.”

Fuesting also addressed the council’s past discussion about banning firearms in the parks. He referenced Georgia Law 16-11-173, which restricts municipalities from regulating firearm possession.

Henderson’s proposal

Following the chief, Henderson recapped his previous proposal to restrict firearms in city parks and impose fines on those caught carrying them. He noted that law creates challenges with the legality of such ideas.

The councilman said he understands the state law. Georgia allows firearms in public under concealment or open carry by anyone over 21 (with exceptions for felons or certain mental capacities). Additionally, 18- to 21-year-olds who are actively in the military can carry.

“While I acknowledge this, which I understand, I still believe it is crucial to take action regarding the presence of firearms in parks where children play,” Henderson said.

Henderson reiterated more statements from the May meeting, saying that he is not against the Second Amendment, but sees no reason for firearms in parks around children.

With gun restrictions appearing impossible, Henderson offered up three different suggestions to the council: Cameras, signs and security.

Idea 1: Cameras

Henderson’s first suggestion was to put cameras throughout all of the city parks.

The councilman said he saw surveillance cameras at Legion Field, and Fuesting added that there is also surveillance at Academy Springs, which assisted the CPD in investigating the shooting that occurred there on May 25.

The council requested an estimate of the cost to install cameras in every park. Though Fuesting could not provide a total price on the spot, he was able to share that one Flock camera costs approximately $3,500.

“Increased security with cameras in any park would be fantastic, but there is a cost that incurs, so I think in the meantime, our best idea is to increase the patrols,” Fuesting said. “The guys have already started doing the concentrated patrols now, so once we know that there’s an event for sure going on that day, we’ll just do some more increased patrols and have more of a presence.”

Flock cameras only read license plates, so the council mentioned investing in more surveillance cameras as well.

“You’ve got kids coming in on bicycles, they're not going to have a tag,” Councilwoman Susie Keck said. “And there’s bad players that are not driving cars.”

Fuesting also brought up Fusus cameras as a possible avenue, which integrate feeds from city cameras with consenting private cameras. 

Idea 2: Signs

In May, the council discussed placing deterrent signage throughout the city parks that say ‘no weapons’ in large print with the circle/slash sign over a firearm image, and then specify the law’s age restriction in smaller print.

City Manager Tres Thomas presented a mock sign design to the room, but the council was divided on its effectiveness.

“I’m not in favor of the signs because basically they’re not worth the paper they’re written on,” said Councilman Jared Rutberg. ‘...Bad guys aren’t going to read the sign.

“I’d rather we put a sign up that said ‘F- around and find out.’”

But Councilwoman Charika Davis spoke in favor of signs. 

“I like the cameras, and I also like the signage,” Davis said. “I don’t think it will hurt. I mean, I know we can’t police behavior, but at the end of the day, we need to do something to try and deter people…We really don’t need to just act like cowboys and Indians and just, we need to do something.”

Thomas added that the city would be able to make the signs in-house, saying he does not think they would be “too terribly expensive.”

Idea 3: Mandatory security officers

Henderson also proposed requiring those utilizing the park for an event to have – and pay for – security.

“Also, another point, a lot of venues around, when it comes to certain gatherings, they require people to actually hire either an off-duty officer or their own personal security services,” Henderson said. 

However, this suggestion was not as popular, with some pointing out that many spaces are first-come, first-serve. 

“I assume that was just an impromptu birthday party out there on the picnic tables,” said City Attorney Frank Turner Jr., in reference to the Academy Springs Park shooting. “Nobody gets a permit for that. You just show up and do it.”

Mayor Fleeta Baggett weighed in as well, saying that the council ultimately cannot police behavior. 

“You can put all the cameras you want out, and you can hire security guards and you can do that,” Baggett said. “But you can’t make people behave.

“...You can't say, 'OK, you’re at Academy Springs, and if you use Picnic Table A, then you have to have a security guard.’ We can’t put a security guard in every park.”

Henderson clarified that he only means for large gatherings, such as 50 or more people. But Baggett countered again.

“If somebody decides they want to have a Sunday school class reunion over there and they’re just there, you don’t have any control over that,” Baggett said. “Like the people who had the problem there this past weekend [May 25], they didn't have to ask anyone to do anything. They all just showed up.”

Takeaways

The council ultimately decided to pursue cameras, explore signage and welcome the increased CPD patrols. They also recommended speaking with the county to see their measures and note if they have cameras up at parks.

“It doesn’t do us any good if we only put [cameras] in at our places and the county doesn’t do theirs,” Rutberg said.

Being a discussion topic, the council held no formal vote. The conversation concluded with Fuesting agreeing to seek out a cost estimate for cameras. 

It is unclear if the city will install signs, as they did not appear to arrive at any consensus. It does appear that private security will not become a requirement of visitors anytime soon.

“Like you said, cameras are going to capture after the fact, and it’s great for us for investigating but a camera’s not going to keep someone from committing a crime,” Fuesting said. “...The best deterrent is going to be us as police officers in the area, in the parks. The rate that the call volume’s going now, it’s hard to get us into the sparks and everything, but that’s why we’re doing a concentrated effort now with the patrols.”