PDA

View Full Version : Mathew Sheperd Hate Crimes Bill


AMDG
07-17-2009, 10:00 AM
I think the senate passed it today: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106677813

Did the CCW reciprocity provision make it in?

dustoff31
07-17-2009, 10:08 AM
This was being discussed on Fox news a few minutes ago. It seems that the hate crimes legislation somehow got attached to a defense spending bill, and they are still arguing about it.

No mention was made of the CCW issue.

AMDG
07-17-2009, 12:02 PM
Looks like a watered down version of the original is on the floor today. Doesn't help us here in CA. Its the last one on this page:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=111&stepID=S*&stepD=o&stepD1=20090716



(b) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

``(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

``(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.

(d) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

END

Gator Monroe
07-17-2009, 12:09 PM
Is this the one that will make N.A.M.B.L.A. & Pedophiles & Transgender Airport jet refuelers, and foot fettish twiddlers & horse hand job sneakers would all be protected against hate crimes ??:eek:

mblat
07-17-2009, 12:15 PM
Looks like a watered down version of the original is on the floor today. Doesn't help us here in CA. Its the last one on this page:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=111&stepID=S*&stepD=o&stepD1=20090716




IMHO you are not entirely correct. Of cause it won't make CA shall-issue, however it will allow people from other "shall-issue" states carry in CA. It would be very interesting how somebody can defend the question of how come somebody from Alaska entitled to carry on streets of LA and somebody from West Hollywood ( I am sure we can find a gay who wants to carry ) can't.

Decoligny
07-17-2009, 12:25 PM
Looks like a watered down version of the original is on the floor today. Doesn't help us here in CA. Its the last one on this page:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=111&stepID=S*&stepD=o&stepD1=20090716



(b) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--

``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

``(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

``(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.

(d) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

END

So, since we, the law abiding people of California can't get a license to carry concealed here in California, it would mean that the Utah non-resident CCW would work for law abiding Californians and be good in every single state that has CCWs except California. The only place a normal law abiding Californian (with a Utah non-resident permit) wouldn't be able to carry concealed is in California. And the ONLY people who wouldn't be allowed to carry concealed in CA would be law abiding Californians.

bigcalidave
07-17-2009, 12:53 PM
Sorry, didn't see the NON resident part.

bigcalidave
07-17-2009, 12:56 PM
Why do we need more raptors? ****! drop the raptors and get CCW reciprocity through and through!

Untamed1972
07-17-2009, 1:04 PM
Sorry, didn't see the NON resident part.


If you read it all it's basically saying that it won't force a state to change it's policies and that a carrier from another state must abide by the regs and restrictions of the state they are in. So that makes me wonder then if CA could still choose not to recognize out of state permits, say for example because of the CA "good cause" requirement.

"``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or"

The laws and conditions in CA require the "showing of good cause" to be granted a permit. So wouldn't that mean that an out of state carrier would have to "show good cause" for his permit to be valid under this Fed law?

AMDG
07-17-2009, 1:04 PM
IMHO you are not entirely correct. Of cause it won't make CA shall-issue, however it will allow people from other "shall-issue" states carry in CA. It would be very interesting how somebody can defend the question of how come somebody from Alaska entitled to carry on streets of LA and somebody from West Hollywood ( I am sure we can find a gay who wants to carry ) can't.


Allow me to rephrase, then. Us CA residents won't be able to use our CCW permits from other states to CC here in CA. Bummer.

Untamed1972
07-17-2009, 1:05 PM
Allow me to rephrase, then. Us CA residents won't be able to use our CCW permits from other states to CC here in CA. Bummer.

I think if I'm reading it correctly CA wouldn't hafta honor out of state CCWs anyway.

bigcalidave
07-17-2009, 1:13 PM
If you read it all it's basically saying that it won't force a state to change it's policies and that a carrier from another state must abide by the regs and restrictions of the state they are in. So that makes me wonder then if CA could still choose not to recognize out of state permits, say for example because of the CA "good cause" requirement.

"``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or"

The laws and conditions in CA require the "showing of good cause" to be granted a permit. So wouldn't that mean that an out of state carrier would have to "show good cause" for his permit to be valid under this Fed law?

I just wrote that because I erased my previous comment.
As for what you are saying, I don't think that "good cause" is a manner in which to carry. They are talking about can / can't carry in bars, schools, parks, etc. whatever a state's regs may be.

GaryV
07-17-2009, 1:34 PM
I just wrote that because I erased my previous comment.
As for what you are saying, I don't think that "good cause" is a manner in which to carry. They are talking about can / can't carry in bars, schools, parks, etc. whatever a state's regs may be.

This is correct. And as for all those extra restrictions that sheriffs like to add onto the licenses they do issue, notice that an out-of-state license is equivalent to an unrestricted license. This means that non-resident will have more freedom to carry than many licensed Californians.

Decoligny
07-17-2009, 2:06 PM
I think if I'm reading it correctly CA wouldn't hafta honor out of state CCWs anyway.

It doesn't say that. It says that anyone who HAS a permit from another state must be treated as if the permit was from CA. If CA had a law that said a permit holder can't carry into a liquor store, then the out of state permit holder would not be able to carry in a liquor store.

It does not say that the out of state permit holder would have to meet the requirements for a permit in CA, only that they would be subject to the restrictions that a standard CA permit has under CA law.

tiki
07-17-2009, 2:18 PM
Wow. I can't believe it.

nick
07-17-2009, 3:12 PM
So, since we, the law abiding people of California can't get a license to carry concealed here in California, it would mean that the Utah non-resident CCW would work for law abiding Californians and be good in every single state that has CCWs except California. The only place a normal law abiding Californian (with a Utah non-resident permit) wouldn't be able to carry concealed is in California. And the ONLY people who wouldn't be allowed to carry concealed in CA would be law abiding Californians.

I'm afraid, it specifically says "residents". Meaning the residents of Utah would be able to carry here, and the residents of CA most likely will not be able to do so. However, it should helps us in making our case for shall-issue.

Gray Peterson
07-17-2009, 3:17 PM
Is this the one that will make N.A.M.B.L.A. & Pedophiles & Transgender Airport jet refuelers, and foot fettish twiddlers & horse hand job sneakers would all be protected against hate crimes ??:eek:

Quit spreading FUD.

nick
07-17-2009, 3:19 PM
If you read it all it's basically saying that it won't force a state to change it's policies and that a carrier from another state must abide by the regs and restrictions of the state they are in. So that makes me wonder then if CA could still choose not to recognize out of state permits, say for example because of the CA "good cause" requirement.

"``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or"

The laws and conditions in CA require the "showing of good cause" to be granted a permit. So wouldn't that mean that an out of state carrier would have to "show good cause" for his permit to be valid under this Fed law?


I think you're taking that one too far, as the permits are ALREADY granted in those other states. This bill doesn't regulate issuing the permits, just carrying once you've already received the permit.

Decoligny
07-17-2009, 3:20 PM
I'm afraid, it specifically says "residents". Meaning the residents of Utah would be able to carry here, and the residents of CA most likely will not be able to do so. However, it should helps us in making our case for shall-issue.

Section 2 says "residents", Section 1 doesn't say "residents".

As I read it, Section 1 deals with someone having a permit from "a State" i.e a Utah non-resident CCW, and Section 2 deals with someone having a permit from "their own State".

``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

nicki
07-17-2009, 3:26 PM
Guess I will just have to move to "Nevada" and "Commute" to California.

Damm I will miss my Ca Dr license, people to vote against, jury duty, Ca Smog checks, etc. etc.:rolleyes:

Nicki

nick
07-17-2009, 3:48 PM
Guess I will just have to move to "Nevada" and "Commute" to California.

Damm I will miss my Ca Dr license, people to vote against, jury duty, Ca Smog checks, etc. etc.:rolleyes:

Nicki

Yeah, you'll be living the life full of hardships, I can tell :p

mblat
07-17-2009, 5:46 PM
While move to Nevada may be a good thing over all I do not think lack of ability to obtain CA CCW would be the reason.
Like I said - there is something inherently wrong with the fact that I (living in LA area) can't carry and a person from Las Vegas can.
There are surely some kind of law suit asking to be filed here......

Have to say - for all bad thing that Dems about to do to this country none of this laws would have chance to pass if they wouldn't be in power.

Gator Monroe
07-17-2009, 5:55 PM
Quit spreading FUD.

yOU TELL ME WHERE THE PROTECTION given by this Hate Crimes bill stops and who it does not protect ?:)

Shotgun Man
07-17-2009, 6:04 PM
While move to Nevada may be a good thing over all I do not think lack of ability to obtain CA CCW would be the reason.
Like I said - there is something inherently wrong with the fact that I (living in LA area) can't carry and a person from Las Vegas can.
There are surely some kind of law suit asking to be filed here......

Have to say - for all bad thing that Dems about to do to this country none of this laws would have chance to pass if they wouldn't be in power.

Yeah, it's a terrific start. It is also going to ignite a lot of interest in CCW. People are going to recognize how incredibly goofy this is and CA CCW may change, either through lawsuits or legislation.

The ironic thing is, California already has extremely draconian hate crime laws. So this bill would represent a net loss to any CA anti.

CHS
07-17-2009, 6:46 PM
It's so sad that I'll be able to get a Utah non-resident permit and carry in every state but my own. :(

What I want to know is how does this affect carry in places like NYC? I lawfully own a handgun, but due to NYC law I can't even bring a gun into the city because there is no way for me to get a registration for it.

Do you think this law would preempt city registration schemes and allow me to lawfully conceal-carry a firearm in NYC with a Utah non-resident permit?

Because that would be AWESOME.

7x57
07-17-2009, 6:50 PM
Do you think this law would preempt city registration schemes and allow me to lawfully conceal-carry a firearm in NYC with a Utah non-resident permit?

Because that would be AWESOME.

Indeed. NYC is the Barad-Dur of gun control, and anything that breaches the walls is indeed awesome.

7x57

mblat
07-17-2009, 6:58 PM
Do you think this law would preempt city registration schemes and allow me to lawfully conceal-carry a firearm in NYC with a Utah non-resident permit?

I would get immense satisfaction doing it. My wife has been bugging me about trip to NY to visit relatives. If this thing will become law she will get her wish much sooner than she can imagine.

GaryV
07-17-2009, 7:03 PM
What I want to know is how does this affect carry in places like NYC? I lawfully own a handgun, but due to NYC law I can't even bring a gun into the city because there is no way for me to get a registration for it.

Do you think this law would preempt city registration schemes and allow me to lawfully conceal-carry a firearm in NYC with a Utah non-resident permit?

Because that would be AWESOME.

The way I read the law, it would. The only state (or, presumably, lower governmental entity) laws that would apply would be those general laws restricting manner and place of carry. If a holder of a NY carry permit can carry in NYC, then I would expect that any non-resident could. Requiring that they only carry registered firearms would moot the law.

CHS
07-17-2009, 10:55 PM
I would get immense satisfaction doing it. My wife has been bugging me about trip to NY to visit relatives. If this thing will become law she will get her wish much sooner than she can imagine.

I've visited NYC only a couple times for vacation.

It's a great place to vacation, but I really really really hate that city.

Every single time I've been there all I could think constantly was "I really wish I had a gun on me".

PEBKAC
07-18-2009, 1:26 AM
yOU TELL ME WHERE THE PROTECTION given by this Hate Crimes bill stops and who it does not protect ?:)

S.909 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-909)
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

--(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

--‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

----‘(a) In General-

--------‘(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

----------‘(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

----------‘(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

--------------2
--------------‘(i) death results from the offense; or

--------------2
--------------‘(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

--------1
--------‘(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

----------2
----------‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

--------------‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

--------------‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

----------------‘(I) death results from the offense; or

----------------‘(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

----------‘(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

--------------‘(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

----------------‘(I) across a State line or national border; or

----------------‘(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

--------------3
--------------‘(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

--------------‘(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

--------------‘(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

----------------‘(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

----------------‘(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

--------‘(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

----‘(b) Certification Requirement-

--------‘(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that--

----------‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

----------‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

----------2
----------‘(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

----------‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

--------‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

----‘(c) Definitions- In this section--

--------‘(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

--------‘(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

--------‘(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

--------‘(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’.

----(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

--------‘249. Hate crime acts.’.

This ain't rocket science. Bolded sections on the aforementioned who is affected and under what circumstances.

Gator Monroe
07-18-2009, 7:25 AM
S.909 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-909)


This ain't rocket science. Bolded sections on the aforementioned who is affected and under what circumstances.

Why are you not showing the Hate Crimes part of the bill ?:confused:

Gator Monroe
07-18-2009, 7:30 AM
S.909 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-909)


This ain't rocket science. Bolded sections on the aforementioned who is affected and under what circumstances.

Or is this one of many Hate Crimes Bills over last 2 years ( And this one is not the one that Dem chair (NY Senator Shumer) would not draw line of protections at Pediphiles & N.A.M.B.L.A. types and that they along with many many other undisclosed groups may fall under the bills protections . This is gettin outta hand and now they are spotlighting weapons used in so-called "Hate Crimes" ?:(

yellowfin
07-18-2009, 8:04 AM
The two places this bill will have a huge and heavy impact are New Jersey and Maryland. Residents of southeast Pennsylvania, Delaware, and northeast Virginia are often significantly impacted or outrightly stripped of their carry rights because their work or commute takes them into or through those two states. Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, for instance, are one street apart share 2 or 3 bridges. Something around 30-35% of the US population is affected by this disgusting hop scotch game of legal here, not legal there, make a wrong turn on the road and you're an instant felon. It makes a lot of eligible citizens- my father in law for example- hold back on their RKBA for real fear of being targets of opportunity for LE of the unfriendly states. Like we see in CA, right of self defense can be made useless and exclude large portions of the population if it can't be accessed when and where needed and without excessive complications.

Gator Monroe
07-18-2009, 8:12 AM
The two places this bill will have a huge and heavy impact are New Jersey and Maryland. Residents of southeast Pennsylvania, Delaware, and northeast Virginia are often significantly impacted or outrightly stripped of their carry rights because their work or commute takes them into or through those two states. Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, for instance, are one street apart share 2 or 3 bridges. Something around 30-35% of the US population is affected by this disgusting hop scotch game of legal here, not legal there, make a wrong turn on the road and you're an instant felon. It makes a lot of eligible citizens- my father in law for example- hold back on their RKBA for real fear of being targets of opportunity for LE of the unfriendly states. Like we see in CA, right of self defense can be made useless and exclude large portions of the population if it can't be accessed when and where needed and without excessive complications.
Ditto , shoot a NAMBLA transgender airport worker/Jet Refueler who is sodomising your 7 yearold son in your sons bedroom at 3 in the morning , and you will be charged with a hate crime and go to Jail pronto.

Santa Cruz Armory
07-18-2009, 8:20 AM
Every single time I've been there all I could think constantly was "I really wish I had a gun on me".

I feel that way every time I go to Salinas, Watsonville and some of San Jose.

CHS
07-18-2009, 8:43 AM
Ditto , shoot a NAMBLA transgender airport worker/Jet Refueler who is sodomising your 7 yearold son in your sons bedroom at 3 in the morning , and you will be charged with a hate crime and go to Jail pronto.

How on earth do you get that from this bill?

Shooting someone to defend your child against rape is not a hate crime, no matter what. This bill certainly does differentiate.

Gator Monroe
07-18-2009, 9:00 AM
How on earth do you get that from this bill?

Shooting someone to defend your child against rape is not a hate crime, no matter what. This bill certainly does differentiate.

Think about it , if you shoot a Mathew Sheppard who is molesting your kid you are in deep doo doo , so therefor a Transgender or NAMBLA Person cold fall under the Hate Crimes bill (perhaps an earlier one from a year ago) in places like Ca. WHERE THOUGHT CRIMES COUNT ?

Decoligny
07-18-2009, 12:16 PM
Think about it , if you shoot a Mathew Sheppard who is molesting your kid you are in deep doo doo , so therefor a Transgender or NAMBLA Person cold fall under the Hate Crimes bill (perhaps an earlier one from a year ago) in places like Ca. WHERE THOUGHT CRIMES COUNT ?

If you shoot someone who is in the process of commiting a violent felony assault on a defenseless person, you would not be committing a hate crime. If you shot a transgender NAMBLA member just because he/she was a trangender NAMBLA member then you would have committed a hate crime.

It all boils down to the motive behind the shooting.

If you shoot a bearded straight macho trucker while he was raping your 7 year old daughter in her bedroom at 3 a.m. you wouldn't be charged with a hate crime.

If you shoot a trangenered NAMBLA member while he/she was raping your 7 year old son in his bedroom at 3 a.m. you wouldn't be charged with a hate crime.

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-18-2009, 3:43 PM
Or is this one of many Hate Crimes Bills over last 2 years ( And this one is not the one that Dem chair (NY Senator Shumer) would not draw line of protections at Pediphiles & N.A.M.B.L.A. types and that they along with many many other undisclosed groups may fall under the bills protections . This is gettin outta hand and now they are spotlighting weapons used in so-called "Hate Crimes" ?:(

The following groups are protected: "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability".

mblat
07-18-2009, 3:45 PM
It is all well and good...... I just don't quite understand how it is related to "interstate commerce"

PEBKAC
07-18-2009, 4:21 PM
Or is this one of many Hate Crimes Bills over last 2 years ( And this one is not the one that Dem chair (NY Senator Shumer) would not draw line of protections at Pediphiles & N.A.M.B.L.A. types and that they along with many many other undisclosed groups may fall under the bills protections . This is gettin outta hand and now they are spotlighting weapons used in so-called "Hate Crimes" ?:(
I'm pretty sure I did link to the current one. It is the Matthew Shepard Hate crimes prevention act. If you checked the link, it says Congress session 2009-2010.

The thread's title, if I recall correctly, specifically names the "Matthew Shepard Hate crimes bill". So that is what I looked for.

If I have erred, please link me to the correct one.

From the text of this bill, I took out the part that actually defines hate crimes and their punishments and highlighted the sections to do with who is "protected"*, and what from.

Pedophiles, as defined by the DSM-IV potentially fall under this protection as pedophilia is a mental disorder and thus potentially a mental disability.

Nothing is in there about giving pedophiles protection from acts of self defense by other members of the public. But everyone else already covered that, so I won't go over it again.

It is an expansion of government power yes, but that is about it.



*I put protected in quotes because it really isn't protection. Just increased sentencing for hate crimes. A real hate crime protection bill would be a nationwide CCW scheme. ;)

LAK Supply
07-18-2009, 6:10 PM
This would be great... that means when I'm out visiting my family in the PRK I can actually bring my gun with me? It's looking up... :)

Gator Monroe
07-18-2009, 6:24 PM
The following groups are protected: "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability".

Sexuial Orientation ? Gender Identity ??Disability ??? to get to some of those there would have to be a hint of thought police ????

Gator Monroe
07-19-2009, 7:03 AM
The following groups are protected: "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability".

The Bill that created these protections is very open to protection of groups & individuials who many would say are undeserving of such protections . (Leave it to AV to come to my rescue on this, thanx AV for jumping in .)

sfwdiy
07-19-2009, 4:51 PM
Aside from whether or not this bill provides protections for pederasts, have we reached any consensus as to whether or not this is legitimate CCW reciprocity?

--B

PEBKAC
07-19-2009, 5:44 PM
Sexuial Orientation ? Gender Identity ??Disability ??? to get to some of those there would have to be a hint of thought police ????
It stops being a thought crime when one starts wailing on somebody. Actually disliking and voicing this dislike for specific groups is not infringed upon by this law (see highlighted below). Obviously voicing dislike for said groups ~while~ wailing on somebody would probably give one an upgrade into the "hate crimes" category as opposed to just normal grievous bodily harm, assault and battery, homicide, etc.

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

--For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

----(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

----(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

----(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

----(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

The Bill that created these protections is very open to protection of groups & individuials who many would say are undeserving of such protections .
Yes, a Bill that provides "hate crimes protections" to anyone that has an "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" is likely to cover some "undeserving" groups as it covers everyone in the USA in at least 6 ways.

Everyone has a percieved race of some sort.
Everyone has a color of some sort.
Not everyone has a religion of some sort (bonus points if you do).
Everyone has a national origin of some sort.
Everyone has a gender of some sort.
Everyone has a sexual orientation of some sort.
Everyone has a gender identity of some sort.
Not everyone has a disability of some sort (bonus points if you do).


If said groups are "undeserving" because of acts that members of said groups have committed are illegal, this does not make it harder to put said members of said groups in jail for said acts as those acts are outside the jurisdiction of this Bill. Unless of course said acts by said members of said groups were carried out in a manner in keeping with the definition of "hate crime" as per this Bill's definition IN WHICH CASE those acts carry a heavier sentence than they would normally.

If said groups are "undeserving" only because of what they think, say, or feel then whoever is defining these groups as undeserving on this basis is doing a little thought policing of their own.

Now can we please get back to the part about how this affects CCW reciprocity?

nicki
07-20-2009, 2:10 PM
The CCW provision not been yet been attached, hopefully a vote later this week.

Nicki

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:26 PM
Notice that section 2, which mentions residency, doesn't require a CCW permit. This is for Vermont style states which do not require permits for concealed weapons.

So, just being from Vermont automatically gets you a national permit... awesome, eh?

I will have to say that if this should actually pass, I may actually bother with a non-resident permit for once.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 2:29 PM
Here is the rub IF someone out of state comes here that has another state's CCW permit they are then having to follow Californias laws. Thing is that each county has the right to set restrictions on the CCW process which makes it almost impossible to carry in the state even if you are one of the lucky few to get the permission to.

Personally I would like to see ONE government body that issues the CCW that makes it valid throughout the state. That won't put ridiculously stupid restrictions on them that make them next to useless and make them shall issue to anyone that is legally able to have a gun and wants the right to carry. Or next best thing make LOC acceptable. But we all know my choice has a snowballs chance of happening with the bunch of lunkheads we have in Government right now.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:35 PM
Here is the rub IF someone out of state comes here that has another state's CCW permit they are then having to follow Californias laws. Thing is that each county has the right to set restrictions on the CCW process which makes it almost impossible to carry in the state even if you are one of the lucky few to get the permission to.

Actually, I believe they have to write the restrictions on the license. The "disencumberment" of calling it a non restricted license would probably render that a non issue here.

Personally I would like to see ONE government body that issues the CCW that makes it valid throughout the state. That won't put ridiculously stupid restrictions on them that make them next to useless and make them shall issue to anyone that is legally able to have a gun and wants the right to carry. Or next best thing make LOC acceptable. But we all know my choice has a snowballs chance of happening with the bunch of lunkheads we have in Government right now.

True, although we have exactly that for assault weapon permits. DOJ can issue assault weapon permits for our weapons, you know. They just have a policy of routinely refusing them if anyone applies. A state CCW office would do the same thing...

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 3:11 PM
One clause away from excellence:

"other than the State of residence of the person that--"

GaryV
07-20-2009, 3:17 PM
The Brady Bunch, and all their lackeys, are pulling out all the stops to fight this. There are a lot of negative stories out there in the press already, most just smear pieces that are nothing more than long rants by some anti mouthpiece. And I've already heard from 2 or 3 people who've gotten phone calls from some group or other asking them to call their senators and tell them to vote against it.

tango-52
07-20-2009, 7:42 PM
Here is the rub IF someone out of state comes here that has another state's CCW permit they are then having to follow Californias laws. Thing is that each county has the right to set restrictions on the CCW process which makes it almost impossible to carry in the state even if you are one of the lucky few to get the permission to.

Personally I would like to see ONE government body that issues the CCW that makes it valid throughout the state. That won't put ridiculously stupid restrictions on them that make them next to useless and make them shall issue to anyone that is legally able to have a gun and wants the right to carry. Or next best thing make LOC acceptable. But we all know my choice has a snowballs chance of happening with the bunch of lunkheads we have in Government right now.

However, a California CCWer from a County that doesn't put restrictions on their permit is not required to follow the restrictions that another County would put on their residents.

bigcalidave
07-21-2009, 4:29 AM
Here is the rub IF someone out of state comes here that has another state's CCW permit they are then having to follow Californias laws. Thing is that each county has the right to set restrictions on the CCW process which makes it almost impossible to carry in the state even if you are one of the lucky few to get the permission to.

Really no "rub" there. That's just not how it works. The california law only says who can be eligible, and that county sheriffs have ISSUING authority. California as a state allows citizens to CCW, so anyone with a CCW license from another state (but not a CA resident(except one with a CA CCW)) can CCW here...