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

[jmhorrible]

I don't know. I still think the upside far outweights the negatives.

Adding gays as one more group of the hate crime protected class: one additional step down that slippery slope. This, or something similar, will be realized in the near future.

Cross-state CCW: a total game changer, especialy for places like NYC, NJ, Mass, DC

If it's coming, we might as well benefit.

 

[mikem317]

I say support it so it passes, and gets signed into law.

Then the Constitutional merits of the "hate crime" component is challenged since any "hate crime" law is inherently unconstitutional.

 

[TomH]

The whole "hate crime" stuff is bull. A crime is a crime. If the punishment isn't good enough as is then change the punishment across the board.

I agree that things getting rolled into other bills is crap. A bill should only be able to have one purpose. This is how much of the "pork" gets through in this country.

 

[Kicker96FS]

I would not look a gift horse in the mouth, stop bitch'n. Who cares if it is attached to or part of another totally different issue? I don't. This would be a great thing (the CCW part) if it passes, the "hate" crime is BS, everyone is protected under the law but if someone wants to think differently (no pun intended) so be it. I say pass the bill!

 

[Garys]

Gee...he's from Northeastern....what a surprise. 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>

Maybe it's me, but my sense is that most of these "criminology experts" that are cited in the media are experts because they tell the media that they are experts. I wonder how many of them have ever actually engaged in police work, been prosecutors (or defense attorneys) or have seen crime victims in real life?

Medical school professors are generally doctors who have or are still in active practice. Many law school professors are or were practicing attorneys. Why is that in the soft topics like anything involving sociology, the professors seem to have lived their lives in the academic world with no experience of having their theories actually meet reality.

 

[Garys]

Are there lighter sentences for Love Crimes?

"Hate Crimes" are just another way of favoring one group over another. Note that if a black person calls someone a "cracker" while kicking the crap out of them invariably the DA or PD says that "is no evidence that race was involved". OTOH, if the perpetrator is white and the victim is a minority the presumption is ALWAYS that the crime no matter what the circumstances was racially motivated.

I would not look a gift horse in the mouth, stop bitch'n. Who cares if it is attached to or part of another totally different issue? I don't. This would be a great thing (the CCW part) if it passes, the "hate" crime is BS, everyone is protected under the law but if someone wants to think differently (no pun intended) so be it. I say pass the bill!

I'd definitely look this horse in the mouth because I suspect I'd find rotten teeth. You may think it's BS, but if you get involved in a fight with your minority neighbor or a stranger, you'll find out what BS really is. Not only will the DA put extra effort into finding you at fault, there's a good chance that the case will be referred to the FBI and US Attorney's office.

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.

I agree. We lose far more by giving up First Amendment rights than the small advantage we will gain for the Second.

The entire purpose of the First Amendment was to protect speech that the government might find offensive. That's one thing that makes this country different and better than the others. We have a right to tell the government or anyone else to screw off and not go to jail for it. Then there is the whole issue of expanding civil rights violations from the government at all levels and it's agencies to individual citizens. That's antithethical the underlying principles upon which this country was founded.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Small rant of sorts

When you have a large portion of people who think that you need special laws for certain people based on their choice of partners, or because of their religion, or the color of their skin, it will create "un-equality", the balance will be shifted. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States, all proclaim that "all men are created equal". Were that actually the case, we would not need protected classes of people, nor would we need these " feel good, do no good laws". But if we follow the logic of this hate crime bill, would not every person who loves their guns,( I don't mean "Loves" their guns, your sick puppies, and had better hope you don't have a ND, you'll blow your junk off or up ), back on topic, would that logic also follow for our class of people, we are a small group, have different beliefs than the general population, and are a minority. Point blank, if someone like a gun grabber were to say I am a freak or barbarian for loving my guns, would that not constitute a hate crime, where as I am from a minority group of 2A supporters, would that gun grabber, not be harrassing me. I know it sounds silly, and that the thought of it is in fact silly, but I am just following the hard core logic of it, because in all intensive purposes, we have our own technical religion, we believe our guns can save us, no different that someone who completely believes Jesus will save them. I mean it is an endless, and ironical debate, how far will these people go to keep the feeling that every culture,religion, race and sex should be seperate and each have speacial laws pertaining to them.

I am split in the middle on this one, I do not like the idea of such an under defined law, it is entirely to vauge, and think that with today's DA's who push hard for a win in court by any means, it would not take anything substantial or factual to convict anyone for a "hate crime". On the flip side, the proposed add on, which is an obvious baiting tactic, is the possibility to have a national recip. for CCW. Now I would be hard pressed not to support this one, due to the hard fight we have had to endure just to keep and bear arms, but attached to a vauge law, that seems, by it's own wording, commits us to restrict our freedom of speech, so it is a shut up and keep your guns for now. That doesn't mean I condone anyone spouting off racial or homophobic talk in public, but I do believe that they have a right to their opinion, and as such, their is a proper place and time for that hateful shit.

I do think that if it does pass, that it will be poison cheese on a mouse trap, we are the mice. They know we are hungry, and they would let CCW happen, right up till the next whack job with a semi auto pistol/rifle guns down an officer, or some students, or a mall full of people, you know the gun free zones. The poisoned cheese is the actual bill, the trap is the add on of national recip. If we get past the trap, we'er dead from the cheese. I doubt it will take people like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Eric Holder, Hilary Clinton, or Ms. Feinstien of Cali, long to find a way to strip that out of the laws, and use a situation above to justify their argument that carrying a gun is fundementaly wrong, and only guns kill innocent people. Then the step forward we thought we had, actually sends us back 5-10 steps, because of them using the gun as the excuse, not the potato head who had a few screws loose. I am smart enough to read between the lines, and have the wisdom, nothing comes with out a price, they will extend us the credit, let us have our guns, but if someone defaults, look out, they will close our account and send in the collection agency. As much as I want the add on, I must hope this bill fails. I would rather keep the ground I have then take the chance of being out flanked and pushed back. We are dealing with a tricky advisary, and am forced to have to think like they would, which is honestly not that difficult, but time consuming. I say let this one fall to the wayside, and be patient, bring this to a good bill that is a defined and reasonable law.

End of rant..................( god my damn fingers are tired now )

 

[sgtdemeo]

in all honesty, I think that where the right is lacking is in the ability to gather and make voices heard as a cohesive, organized front. the left has a strength that makes them powerful beyond their numbers. its the ability to get their supporters to make one, unified voice, rather than 100, fractured voices, all singing out at the same time. its the grass roots efforts that make the left strong, and the right is fractured, like it or not, from the top down. for example- who is the head of the party? for the left, its easy. Barrack Obama. who is it for the right? Steele? Limbaugh? Gingrich? Cheney? Beck? (all examples, to show a point) the point is, you can have the most powerful force in the country, but without a leader to consolidate the power, its never going to be able to be used as a cohesive force. also, I fully understand that there is a lot of anger in the right, due to the path that the left is percieved to be taking this country. when that anger is spouted day after day, always blaming the left for every fault with america, (ex. Rush limbaugh) then moderates, like myself, get fed up, and frankly, insulted by the party. not the best PR tactic. Just my 2 cents.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

if this is going to be another protected class (gay people, that is) then can we get heterosexual people protected as well, especially during coming out day? I dont assume for a second everyone is straight, but they seem to assume everyone has some gay in them.

 

[Realtor MA]

Such a bill might ramp up gun violence, says Jack McDevitt, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.

He's got that 100% right. Because in his eyes wounding/killing an attacker is violent.

 

[livefreeorhere]

he's an idiot - in his eyes the criminals are the ones who've applied for and recieved a CCW permit. He's forgetting about the people who just stick a gun in their wasteband and go on with their lives regardless of what the law says.