What could 'hate crime' bill mean for gun owners?

June 16, 11:45 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Previous Next

16 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  Courtesy Oleg Volk, A Human Right

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.