What is the H R # for the "hate" crimes bill congress is considering?

Is this it?

H.R.1913 Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show

(07-10-2009 01:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Is this it?

H.R.1913 Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show

Yes, I did not realize it had passed the house, all that sits between us and a serious limitation of first amendment rights is Al Frankhen's US Senate. I see gays going after churches first, can't allow them to be teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

.

I told you guys yesterday this was coming and coming fast.

It will even hit us here on this forum like a ton of bricks.

There will be no such thing anymore as a "Heated Debate" or "Lively Discussion", all we will have are a bunch of Costly Crimes laid onto people who speak their minds.

And you can say good-bye to the MSM's that don't cater to the FAR LEFT speech ideal.

As long as you are the NY Times and such Rags, you will be allowed to say ANYTHING you please about anyone, but if you are a Fox News, well, you make the call.

"2nd Amendment is Next Folks" .....

.

What happened to the Constitution -- " The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We are living in a nightmare. The darkest time in American History.

(07-10-2009 05:41 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

I told you guys yesterday this was coming and coming fast.

It will even hit us here on this forum like a ton of bricks.

There will be no such thing anymore as a "Heated Debate" or "Lively Discussion", all we will have are a bunch of Costly Crimes laid onto people who speak their minds.

And you can say good-bye to the MSM's that don't cater to the FAR LEFT speech ideal.

As long as you are the NY Times and such Rags, you will be allowed to say ANYTHING you please about anyone, but if you are a Fox News, well, you make the call.

"2nd Amendment is Next Folks" .....

.

We can talk about fluffy bunnies and pink clouds. If we all fear for our freedom and lawsuits, there will be no need for any debates. A gubment backed ideology, it seems there has been another president in the news that supports a single ideology policy...

(07-10-2009 08:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  What happened to the Constitution -- " The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We are living in a nightmare. The darkest time in American History.

Talk about an overexagerration.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

(07-11-2009 08:45 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

Quote:INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

A law that is written so vague is open to judicial activism from judges such as Sotomayor. As I have said before there is no such thing as "Hate" crime, only Crime. You can pass a law to defer crime, but not hate. The criminal act itself is the only thing someone should be charged for. How would "perceived" be defined? A white person commits a crime against a black person so it most be a "hate" crime, a Straight person commits a crime against a homosexual so it must be a "hate" crime? The "perceived" portion is open to abuse from an activist prosecutor, or judge, and with the right jury could convict anyone that commits a crime against a "protected" individual based on "perception".

This bill, previously introduced in Congress in 2007, seeks to expand upon the 1969 US federal hate-crime law by extending beyond federally-protected activities and towards bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the current provisions of bodily crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. It would also codify and expand the funding and investigative capabilities of federal officials for aiding their local counterparts.

I'm not wild about it either.

I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the 1st amendment.

Its about "bodily" crimes.

(07-11-2009 10:10 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 08:45 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

Quote:INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

A law that is written so vague is open to judicial activism from judges such as Sotomayor. As I have said before there is no such thing as "Hate" crime, only Crime. You can pass a law to defer crime, but not hate. The criminal act itself is the only thing someone should be charged for. How would "perceived" be defined? A white person commits a crime against a black person so it most be a "hate" crime, a Straight person commits a crime against a homosexual so it must be a "hate" crime? The "perceived" portion is open to abuse from an activist prosecutor, or judge, and with the right jury could convict anyone that commits a crime against a "protected" individual based on "perception".

Again, what does this have to do with the First Amendment? How is this interfering with our freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, or our ability to petition the government? How can the gays use this law to go after churches?

The perceived portion is included because whats important in hate crimes is what the accused believes, not what is actually the case. If a guy kills a flamer because he hates gays, only to find out that the flamer was a straight guy on his way to a midnight screening of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, the fact that the victim wasn't actually gay can't be used as a defense.

The basic idea behind hate crime laws it that when someone attacks someone else because of their race (or any of the other categories), they aren't just attacking the victim but attempting to intimidate the rest of the race as well. It's terrorism writ small.

Now, I believe that hate crime laws are largely unecessary. The standard laws are typically enough to handle most cases. For example, in the James Byrd Jr. dragging death case in Texas that led to new hate crime legislation, two of the three defendents recieved the death penalty and the third (who cooperated) received life in prison. The system worked just the way it should have.

But this law merely extends existing protections to additional groups. People are already protected based on their race, color, and creed. It's not revolutionary. And it's certainly not the end of the world.

(07-11-2009 10:10 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 08:45 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

Quote:INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

A law that is written so vague is open to judicial activism from judges such as Sotomayor. As I have said before there is no such thing as "Hate" crime, only Crime. You can pass a law to defer crime, but not hate. The criminal act itself is the only thing someone should be charged for. How would "perceived" be defined? A white person commits a crime against a black person so it most be a "hate" crime, a Straight person commits a crime against a homosexual so it must be a "hate" crime? The "perceived" portion is open to abuse from an activist prosecutor, or judge, and with the right jury could convict anyone that commits a crime against a "protected" individual based on "perception".

This goes right along with the "First Spousal Abuse Laws" that had to be dealt with ....

If a Husband came home and started Beating His Wife for NO REASON, and she FOUGHT BACK to protect her self and this WAS EVIDENT to a Complete Certainty of this and the Scene and from Witness Statements, you STILL Were Compelled to Arrest Both Husband and Wife and Charge them Both with Spousal Abuse.

The law was written to say YOU SHALL ARREST both parties if both parties were involved in the altercation and the actual Law was so vague until is was laughable.

How can a Wife or a Husband NOT be involved if they are getting their Asses Whipped by their Spouse ??????

So here you have now effectively Doubled the Cases in the Courts, when you can Prove the Wife or Husband was the one Being Abused and the other was simply protecting them selves.

The Motto was to Arrest All Involved and let the Court Sort it out so as to Cover Asses (CYA as it were).

If this were a Street Fight and you could prove with that Same Measure of Certainty, that one Started the Altercation and one was simply Protecting them Selves, you had the Discretion to NOT to Arrest the Assaulted or Battered Party.

Now that is Screwed Up folks !!!!!

It was/is a sham and a shame .... I understand the Law is even more ignorant now than it was then - - Politicians NEVER LEARN and we keep taking it up the Gazoo.

.

(07-11-2009 11:41 AM)jh Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 10:10 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 08:45 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

Quote:INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

A law that is written so vague is open to judicial activism from judges such as Sotomayor. As I have said before there is no such thing as "Hate" crime, only Crime. You can pass a law to defer crime, but not hate. The criminal act itself is the only thing someone should be charged for. How would "perceived" be defined? A white person commits a crime against a black person so it most be a "hate" crime, a Straight person commits a crime against a homosexual so it must be a "hate" crime? The "perceived" portion is open to abuse from an activist prosecutor, or judge, and with the right jury could convict anyone that commits a crime against a "protected" individual based on "perception".

Again, what does this have to do with the First Amendment? How is this interfering with our freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, or our ability to petition the government? How can the gays use this law to go after churches?

The perceived portion is included because whats important in hate crimes is what the accused believes, not what is actually the case. If a guy kills a flamer because he hates gays, only to find out that the flamer was a straight guy on his way to a midnight screening of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, the fact that the victim wasn't actually gay can't be used as a defense.

The basic idea behind hate crime laws it that when someone attacks someone else because of their race (or any of the other categories), they aren't just attacking the victim but attempting to intimidate the rest of the race as well. It's terrorism writ small.

Now, I believe that hate crime laws are largely unecessary. The standard laws are typically enough to handle most cases. For example, in the James Byrd Jr. dragging death case in Texas that led to new hate crime legislation, two of the three defendents recieved the death penalty and the third (who cooperated) received life in prison. The system worked just the way it should have.

But this law merely extends existing protections to additional groups. People are already protected based on their race, color, and creed. It's not revolutionary. And it's certainly not the end of the world.

Faux said that it would take away their right to call someone "f@g" and "n!**er".

(07-11-2009 11:49 AM)Tripster Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 10:10 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 08:45 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

Quote:INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

A law that is written so vague is open to judicial activism from judges such as Sotomayor. As I have said before there is no such thing as "Hate" crime, only Crime. You can pass a law to defer crime, but not hate. The criminal act itself is the only thing someone should be charged for. How would "perceived" be defined? A white person commits a crime against a black person so it most be a "hate" crime, a Straight person commits a crime against a homosexual so it must be a "hate" crime? The "perceived" portion is open to abuse from an activist prosecutor, or judge, and with the right jury could convict anyone that commits a crime against a "protected" individual based on "perception".

This goes right along with the "First Spousal Abuse Laws" that had to be dealt with ....

If a Husband came home and started Beating His Wife for NO REASON, and she FOUGHT BACK to protect her self and this WAS EVIDENT to a Complete Certainty of this and the Scene and from Witness Statements, you STILL Were Compelled to Arrest Both Husband and Wife and Charge them Both with Spousal Abuse.

The law was written to say YOU SHALL ARREST both parties if both parties were involved in the altercation and the actual Law was so vague until is was laughable.

How can a Wife or a Husband NOT be involved if they are getting their Asses Whipped by their Spouse ??????

So here you have now effectively Doubled the Cases in the Courts, when you can Prove the Wife or Husband was the one Being Abused and the other was simply protecting them selves.

The Motto was to Arrest All Involved and let the Court Sort it out so as to Cover Asses (CYA as it were).

If this were a Street Fight and you could prove with that Same Measure of Certainty, that one Started the Altercation and one was simply Protecting them Selves, you had the Discretion to NOT to Arrest the Assaulted or Battered Party.

Now that is Screwed Up folks !!!!!

It was/is a sham and a shame .... I understand the Law is even more ignorant now than it was then - - Politicians NEVER LEARN and we keep taking it up the Gazoo.

.

You seem to know a lot about the "spousal abuse" law.

(07-11-2009 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  You seem to know a lot about the "spousal abuse" law.

And you seem to know nothing at all.

(07-11-2009 11:57 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 11:49 AM)Tripster Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 10:10 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-11-2009 08:45 AM)jh Wrote:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text

Would someone please explain to me how this bill is a threat to our First Amendment rights? It's a remarkably short bill. Take the time & read it.

Quote:INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

A law that is written so vague is open to judicial activism from judges such as Sotomayor. As I have said before there is no such thing as "Hate" crime, only Crime. You can pass a law to defer crime, but not hate. The criminal act itself is the only thing someone should be charged for. How would "perceived" be defined? A white person commits a crime against a black person so it most be a "hate" crime, a Straight person commits a crime against a homosexual so it must be a "hate" crime? The "perceived" portion is open to abuse from an activist prosecutor, or judge, and with the right jury could convict anyone that commits a crime against a "protected" individual based on "perception".

This goes right along with the "First Spousal Abuse Laws" that had to be dealt with ....

If a Husband came home and started Beating His Wife for NO REASON, and she FOUGHT BACK to protect her self and this WAS EVIDENT to a Complete Certainty of this and the Scene and from Witness Statements, you STILL Were Compelled to Arrest Both Husband and Wife and Charge them Both with Spousal Abuse.

The law was written to say YOU SHALL ARREST both parties if both parties were involved in the altercation and the actual Law was so vague until is was laughable.

How can a Wife or a Husband NOT be involved if they are getting their Asses Whipped by their Spouse ??????

So here you have now effectively Doubled the Cases in the Courts, when you can Prove the Wife or Husband was the one Being Abused and the other was simply protecting them selves.

The Motto was to Arrest All Involved and let the Court Sort it out so as to Cover Asses (CYA as it were).

If this were a Street Fight and you could prove with that Same Measure of Certainty, that one Started the Altercation and one was simply Protecting them Selves, you had the Discretion to NOT to Arrest the Assaulted or Battered Party.

Now that is Screwed Up folks !!!!!

It was/is a sham and a shame .... I understand the Law is even more ignorant now than it was then - - Politicians NEVER LEARN and we keep taking it up the Gazoo.

.

You seem to know a lot about the "spousal abuse" law.

Unlike you Robs, I've had to WORK for a Living. And YOU don't know where at .... so take a break hoss.

Toot Toot Doot .....

.

I'm still trying to figure out how this law is going to affect this forum & ruin life as we know it.

"Cyberbullying Prevention Act" or the "Censorship Act of 2009" is HR 1966

Just another expansion of government control. Government doing what it must do...grow it's power...and...as usual, it will keep the liberty it takes from the people..not give it back.

Is not just punishing violent crime sufficient?