Proponents call its passage in the House of Representatives "a victory for equality."
Opponents call it the "Pedophile Protection Act."
H.R. 1913 presents itself as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009'.
Its Senate counterpart, S. 909, says "This Act may be cited as the `Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act'."
I understand the motivation among those who sincerely think such legislation is a good thing. Despite attempts to portray gun owners with "conservative" leanings as haters, the track record here is one of liberty for all--as exemplified by constant support for the efforts of groups like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, my continued dialog on race and guns, and links in my sidebar to various groups like Liberty Belles and Pink Pistols.
I also understand the motivation of those who would exploit good intentions and further expand federal powers, which never happens without a cost to freedom. And candidly, I have consistently opposed treating any group with special status under the law. To me, an assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, a murder is a murder. Whether you attack me because you want what's in my wallet or because you don't like people of Transylvanian heritage doesn't matter to me--or to my likely response (or expectation for justice should you succeed).
But a new twist has been added to the "hate crime" bill. Per The Washington Independent:
One month after successfully tucking an amendment into the credit card reform bill that expanded gun rights, a small number of Senate Republicans are looking at the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as another chance to score a victory for the Second Amendment. The possible plan — to add an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons from one state to another in accordance with concealed carry laws. The possible rationale — to defend gay rights...
“Self-defense with a firearm is a valid and viable method of self-defense and protection,” said Gwen Patton, a spokesperson for Pink Pistols. “Imagine that individuals follow you from a place known in the neighborhood as a GLBT gathering place. They follow you to your car, and when you try to open the door, they hold out pipes and yell — ‘Hey, faggot!’ You pull out a concealed weapon that you have a license to carry. They say, ‘He’s got a gun!’ They drop their pipes and run away. No shots were fired, but a beating was just averted.”
Regular readers know I had concerns over tacking the national parks concealed carry amendment onto the credit card bill. I also have concerns with this new potential effort. As do others.
Per the National Association for Gun Rights Blog:
This strategy could have some very real — and negative — consequences for gun owners. If the federal government sets the standard for when and where to carry a gun, then state laws governing the issuance of permits will be next on the chopping block.
I can see a liberal appellate court legislating from the bench and requiring that all states comply with a Federally mandated standard for issuing a permit. Such a Federal mandate would no doubt include an excessive and draconian waiting period, expensive and impractical training requirements, and exorbitant fees. Federal overreaching of this type could effectively neuter all current state CCW laws.
Additionally, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 does nothing for residents of states that don’t already issue permits.
It may be a moot point. Again, per The Washington Independent:
Still, it’s not yet clear whether Thune and his allies will have to go this route to pass concealed carry legislation. It’s still possible that a new hate crimes law will be be folded into the defense authorization for 2009, which would effectively remove it from the amendment process. Thune’s most recent version of the legislation, S. 845, still could be introduced on its own for an up-or-down vote...
If they do go the amendment route, supporters of concealed carry reciprocity are confident that it would be passed as part of a hate crimes bill, and not become a poison pill that kills the entire package.
I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this, as well as the debate that is sure to continue within the "gun rights" community between those who will view this as a incremental progress and those warning us of danger.
One thing we should agree on: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is inclusive. It belongs to us all.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Armed customer stops robbery
- Austin: Does Concealed Carry Support Law Enforcement?
- Boston: Derrick Z. Jackson’s hot air, will Obama listen?
- Charlotte: The gun debate (explained for liberals)
- Cleveland:
Truth hurts gun control agenda
- DC: And then there were nine!
- Denver: Holocaust Museum shooting short-circuited by a gun
- Los Angeles:
Hatred and the far right, Part II: The double-standard continues purely for spite.
- Minneapolis: Dirty Deeds in Virginia
- Seattle: Twenty-three AGs tell Holder no dice on semi-auto ban renewal
- St. Louis: When gun bans are not enough--the war on . . . pocket knives?
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
Darn, you beat me to it. I noticed this a few days ago. The thing I find most interesting about it is who is pushing it - pro-gun gay rights groups.
I've said for a long time that groups like Second Amendment Sisters, Armed Females of America, the Pink Pistols, and the like are the real sign of how thoroughly we're winning the RKBA debate.
Believe me, I understand people's concerns about any national regulation of CCW. But having been burned by that particular infringement myself, I also see the advantages of national recognition of the existing licenses.
This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. Like anything else, though. It can become a big win if you use it as a starting point, and keep pushing. If there is one thing the pro-rights movement has proved, it is that we're quite good at pushing HARD on RKBA issues.
Federal control over CCW's permits is the last thing we want. Ideally, we should be pushing for having State's laws repealed, and allow nothing to take their place. Alaska and Vermont Carry should be the ultimate goal of every State in the nation. These groups are still Statist groups at heart and they believe that the government has and is the answer to every issue that they see before their own special interests.
I vehemently oppose what they are trying to do with this Bill. It is immoral on an entirely new level and is the signifying of the end of the rule of law in America if it doesn't get challenged by the Supreme Court.
"It's Senate counterpart..." should read "Its Senate counterpart."
I agree that special interest groups should not receive special treatment and that it is reprehensible for the "hired hands" to slip legislation through by hiding it as an amendment in a no lose bill. And, I think I am putting my money where my mouth is by refusing to apply for CCW as a retired peace officer. My status as a peace officer should have no bearing as to whether I may practice a Constitutionally protected right. This morning I had to put my pants on one leg at a time, just like all other citizens.
The only good news is IF the media picks up if any leftists cause trouble about the amdt. That's only political.
Not in favor of extra equal rights (which applies to "gay marriage" as well) NOT in favor of the feds grabbing powers they have no claim to (but we have plenty of those already with about 0% chance of rolling back)
In Virginia you can OPEN carry without a permit. It should be that way in any state that wants it. This is a state issue not a Federal one.
Transylvanian? Dude!
My worry is that the Democrats have discovered that they can get any socialist crap they want through the legislative process if they just add a tiny "pro-gun garnish" to it to get us behind otherwise bad bills. In other words, while we think we are playing them, they are actually playing us.
This "hate crime" thing scares me spitless, with or without the gun thing.
Who defines "hate" or "crime?" Shouldn't any crime - aggression toward or actual harm done to another human being - be dealt with by the intended victim or their personal proxies?
When those the government declares to have committed "hate crimes" are made prohibited persons - the CCW provision will be truly useless to THEM.
I don't think this combination is any accident... And it is terrifying to think it is actually considered a done deal.
I agree with MamaLiberty. We should be repealing ALL "hatecrime" legislation, not trying to tack gun rights onto other bad laws. I'm not clear on the distinction between "hatecrime" and "thoughtcrime." Seems to legitimize the idea that the government is arbiter of what you're allowed to think and feel. Couldn't get much scaryier. Punishing actual crimes should be enough, and better to do it on the basis of justice, not the victim's status or the perp's mindset. George Orwell is spinning in his grave. As HenryBowman observes, they could easily play the public by throwing us a sop to advance their agenda.
It is ludicrous for a government that has engaged in Hate Crimes for most of its history to decide to punish its citizens with enhanced sentences and lifelong disabilities after being convicted in the government’s courts for engaging in the same practices. Washington needs to sweep its own house before bringing a broom to mine.
Just in case they’ve forgotten: Blacks, Irish, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, American Indians, Mormons, accused witches, gays in the military, ex-felons, women … as well as many others I can’t presently remember.
To WW Woodward's last comment here:
Yes, it is ludicrous. It's also the history of government in a nutshell.
Let's face it: the definition of "hate crime" is, ultimately, "political dissent from the Establishment". History suggests that the definition may be revealed gradaully, but there is no doubt where it is going.
It is little comfort, for us, that this is usually a sign that the parasite has just about run its course and has doomed itself to extinction. The state, unlike the melting-down child that it amusingly resembles, can cause terrible damage to real people's lives as it claws to clamp down on what it never really had control of in the first place. The state, after all, is responsible for more butchery, betrayal and oppression than any other entity in the history of mankind, with a body count in the hundreds of millions in the last century alone.
But to point that out? That just be hatin'.
If you people think America is so dangerous that you need a gun with you everywhere you go, why don't you go somewhere safer? It's not about safety is it. It's about that feeling of power you get holding a gun in your hand. That's what really motivates you people.
Keep your tinfoil hats tightly on your heads guys and everything will be alright.
Actually, Alex, this country is one of the safest (in many areas) *BECAUSE* of people like us who carry a gun with us everywhere we go. That, sir, is not an opinion, it is a FACT, proven rather conclusively by numerous criminological studies.
The areas of the country which ARE NOT safe, however, are those where people with YOUR attitude have unconstitutionally placed illegal barriers in place to prevent exactly such responsible conduct. We are in the process of establishing that such actions are, indeed, forbidden by the Constitution.
Now, on the off chance that you're just ignorant, I'll go easy on you personally. But be aware that there are very strong laws about advocating the violation of people's civil rights. Which is PRECISELY what you are doing when you urge victim disarmnment laws. If you do not like this, I strongly suggest you review Article V of the US Constitution and get to work.
IN WISCONSIN, WE HAVE A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT'S CONCEALED; WHICH IS ILLEGAL!
IF YOU CHOOSE TO EXCERCISE THIS RIGHT IN THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, THE CHIEF OF POLICE HAS STATED THAT YOU WILL BE "THROWN TO THE GROUND AND DISARMED" BEFORE ANY QUESTIONS ARE ASKED.
YOU WILL THEN BE ISSUED A CITATION FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT. SO MUCH FOR A FREE SOCIETY
AND A FREE PEOPLE.
Well, Alex, if you've led a safe and sheltered life, I think that's great. I worked my way through school in some pretty bad places, late nights to accomodate my classes. I've been attacked with chains, knives, bottles, and robbed at gunpoint twice. After which, I armed up, I've run off criminals with a gun in hand several times. In my experience, it is better to have a gun you don't need than to not have one you do need. And yes, a sense of power beats the "heck" out of a sense of helplessness.
What Bu Hao said.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!