bill would allow Americans with CCW permits to carry their guns across state borders

Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
394
Likes
68
Location
93 and 495
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Gay rights and Gun rights in one bill. via instapundit.

I'd be happier if they clarified the free speech and double jeopardy risks.

500,000 letters in opposition. Maybe we should start writing in support.?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0616/p02s10-ussc.html

Surprise outcome of museum shooting: gay rights

The gay community wants the same hate-crime protections that blacks and Jews have – and would get them in legislation before Congress now.

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the June 15, 2009 edition

James Von Brunn, the white supremacist charged with murdering a Holocaust Museum security guard last week, could inadvertently have won a major victory for homosexuals in the United States.

This month the US Senate is considering an amendment to federal hate-crime laws, which would broaden the definition of a hate crime, offer federal money and training to local jurisdictions, and expand the laws' protections to gays, lesbians and transgender Americans.

Now, Congress is under greater pressure to acknowledge that gays face the same threats as the Jews and blacks targeted by Mr. Von Brunn, and it could take action as soon as this week.

A US District Court announced Monday that the injured octogenarian won't be well enough to be arraigned for at least another week. It's likely Von Brunn will be charged under existing federal hate-crimes laws that cover violent attacks based on race, religion, or creed.

Adding sexuality to that list, however, is problematic. Critics say the legislation could potentially criminalize pastors' sermons against homosexuality. A letter-writing campaign against the bill brought more than 500,000 complaints to the Senate.

But proponents are looking for a number of ways to get the bill passed, from folding the hate-crimes legislation into a separate bill to offering conservatives expanded gun rights as a compromise.

In a press conference Monday, however, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada mentioned Wednesday's shooting and said he would bring the legislation forward by the end of the summer session of Congress in early August.

"Violent acts can physically hurt just a single victim and cause grief to loved ones. Hate crimes do more. They distress entire communities, entire groups of people," Senator Reid said.

The Washington Blade, a gay and lesbian newspaper, reported Monday that the legislation could be amended to the Travel Promotions Act, a bill to attract international tourists to America, which is scheduled to be voted on this week. The report cites a Democratic source as saying the legislation would be approved by Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the compromise option is being pushed by a pro-gun rights gay group in Washington, GOProud. The amendment to the hate-crimes bill would allow Americans with concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns across state lines.

Congress "should pass legislation that will empower individuals to defend themselves before they become another hate crime victim," wrote GOProud board member Christopher Barron in a commentary.

But recent attacks suggest that, in a departure from the past, guns are increasingly being used to commit hate crimes. Such a bill might ramp up gun violence, says Jack McDevitt, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.

The goal of the bill's backers is to persuade crucial Blue Dog Democrats – those from conservative states – to vote for the legislation, experts say. The House passed the bill 249 to 175 on May 8. But the measure has yet to move out of committee in the Senate.

Part of the concern is that the new bill might introduce constitutional questions by expanding the sorts of cases that can be tried as hate crimes. The bill does not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred in order to convict. The defendant need only have acted "because of" someone's race, religion, creed, or sex.

This makes the law overbroad, critics say. The US Commission on Civil Rights, which opposes the bill, noted that rape cases would become hate crimes because victims are almost always chosen because of their sex.

It also increases the chances that defendants could be tried once in a state court for the crime and once in a federal court for the hate crime. This "pushes the envelope" on Americans' constitutional right to be free of "double jeopardy" – being tried twice for the same crime, says Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington.
 
Not interested in supporting anything to do with "hate crime" bills. Sorry. Wait, no I'm not.
 
Last edited:
Such a bill might ramp up gun violence, says Jack McDevitt, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.

Gee...he's from Northeastern....what a surprise. [rolleyes] I guess he never read any of the hundreds of books out there that show crime falling in areas where gun laws don't exist - except that is, for the criminals themselves.

<snort>
 
True, hate crime laws are unnecessary and easily abused. If adding gays to existing hate crime laws gets CCW across state lines, then I'm all for it

Be careful what you wish for. Hate crime laws must be opposed by all freedom-loving people regardless of what side benefits we might think we are getting from them.
 
Besides, What they giveth, they are also willing to easily take away at an opportune time!
 
As much as I would like to be able to CCW across state lines, the restrictions on free speech and other problematic things are too much on the negative side of the balance sheet.
 
With the wide variety of state-to-state CCW reciprocity agreements and the widespread acceptance of non-resident licenses, I see no need to further destroy the First Amendment in order to gain a marginal increase in the Second. And that increase comes from legislative fiat, which is easily reversible.
 
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit" Ayn Rand

No good can come from trading one right for another.
 
Be careful what you wish for. Hate crime laws must be opposed by all freedom-loving people regardless of what side benefits we might think we are getting from them.

May I ask why? This is genuine curiosity on my part, not a thinly veiled attempt at starting an argument.
 
Hey be easy on Northeastern that's where I go [thinking] I'm not sure if I like the idea that multiple rights will be rolled into one, but maybe it will help our cause in the process, who knows.

Gee...he's from Northeastern....what a surprise. [rolleyes] I guess he never read any of the hundreds of books out there that show crime falling in areas where gun laws don't exist - except that is, for the criminals themselves.

<snort>
 
Last edited:
May I ask why? This is genuine curiosity on my part, not a thinly veiled attempt at starting an argument.

In my opinion it gives too much power to the groups it claims to protect over any groups that might speak out against them, in effect silencing them.

In this case any pro homosexual group could claim that anyone speaking out against gay marriage is engaged in hate speech. The common example is a preacher saying homosexuality is wrong in a church sermon can be charged with a crime based on that law and that would infringe on his right to practice religion and free speech. Or, if a homosexual gets fired for any reason at all they would be able to drag the former employer through court just by saying they’re being discriminated against for being homosexual. IANAL, but I would guess that infringes on the employers property rights.

It also leads to the ridiculous laws we’ve been seeing proposed lately like the one allowing transgender men to use women’s restrooms. That one didn’t get through this time but once you make transgenders a protected group via hate crimes laws they get to use it as an argument to get it passed, and I think it’s easy to see how that could get abused.
 
I honestly don't know what to think of this one. I would love to be able to CC across state lines as I'm sure everyone that owns a gun would, but I guess it is just a matter of understanding "the catch". As we have all come to expect there is more often than not at least one.

-Dan
 
May I ask why? This is genuine curiosity on my part, not a thinly veiled attempt at starting an argument.
OK, is it any worse to get beat up because the color of your skin than it is to get beat up because you looked at another guy's woman?

Both are assault. Both are battery. Assuming both cause the same amount of physical trauma, why should the motivation behind the A&B carry any weight in determining the punishment?

Why should it be illegal to speak or write racial epithets in public? We already have laws that criminalize speech that can be reasonably shown to incite violence. If the offensive speech does not give rise to violence or physical harm, who or what gives anyone the right to abridge it?
 
I'm not a fan a legislation like this getting passed due to the restrictions on unpopular free speech. Every case is different and judges have the leeway to deliver a harsher sentence if a crime racially motivated and tell the defendant that is the reason the sentence is harsher. I am however encouraged that more groups of people are recognizing that they have to right to be armed to protect their our lives.
 
Broad interpretation of hate crime legislation can cause a problem with free speech.

Exactly, it gives the ones who are "protected" a chance to phrase "hate crime" rather then a regular crime during any occurence and get preferential treatment. God do I hate preferential treatment...am I the only one that thinks that equality actually means exactly that, that everyone is equal? Rather than a back and forth preference to try to tip the equality scale which is never actually even.
 
Hey be easy on Northeastern that's where I go [thinking] I'm not sure if I like the idea that multiple rights will be rolled into one, but maybe it will help our cause in the process, who knows.

Rephrase then: A Boston college....gee, what a surprise. [wink]

We don't need anymore "hate" crime legislation. If a crime is committed, it shouldn't matter if there was ANY motivation for it. If you wanna do something about it, then increase the amount of time that someone spends behind bars and F the "time off for good behavior".

When the HELL will we wind up with politicians who actually have a GD brain???? Nevermind....I'm off my meds today. Fantasyland butted in.
 
I fail to understand why "hate" crimes need to be categorized separately. Crime should be dealt with as crime and it doesn't need/require a special category.

That said, it is a dilema when you role such legislation as CCW across state lines. I don't know what to make of this one.
 
well, this opens a can of worms...

Exactly, it gives the ones who are "protected" a chance to phrase "hate crime" rather then a regular crime during any occurence and get preferential treatment. God do I hate preferential treatment...am I the only one that thinks that equality actually means exactly that, that everyone is equal? Rather than a back and forth preference to try to tip the equality scale which is never actually even.

so you are all for gay marrage then? all things being equal, that is...

(helmet on)

P.S. I am not a troll, i just see the opportunity for a good discussion here. (this is a preemptive response to those on the boards that feel like ANY view here that is just a little left of the extreme right is a "troll" tryingto start trouble, such as the tesponse i recieved in the jay severin topic on this board a week ago. I posted a response that alluded to jay severins claims that he was awarded the pulitzer, although proven to be a lie.)
 
Last edited:
so you are all for gay marrage then? all things being equal, that is...

I think you'll find a lot of people on here who are all for gay marriage and are completely against hate crimes, protected races, affirmative action, etc.
 
REMINDER...

Since these threads and ones similar usually get locked not long after they start, let me say this. Everyone has an opinion - if you don't like it and you feel the dander coming up - GO TO ANOTHER THREAD AND LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE. If you can discuss this like an adult, then by all means....continue...

Mother
[grin]
 
REMINDER...

Since these threads and ones similar usually get locked not long after they start, let me say this. Everyone has an opinion - if you don't like it and you feel the dander coming up - GO TO ANOTHER THREAD AND LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE. If you can discuss this like an adult, then by all means....continue...

Mother
[grin]

I haven't even gotten started yet! Admonished already? Sheesh!

[wink]
 
Back
Top Bottom