The Thune Amendment to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act

[Euromutt]

In the event that you are not aware, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has sponsored an anti-hate crimes act. In a manner comparable to last month's tucking of the Coburn amendment to allow state weapons law to apply to National Parks into the credit card reform bill, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) is attempting to insert an amendment into Kennedy's bill that would make concealed-carry permits issued by any state valid in any other state that issues concealed-carry permits, state and local laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is the amendment: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-845

Somewhere, I have to laugh, since proponents of this proposed legislation who have not been noted in the past as gay rights proponents are scrambling to justify its inclusion into the hate crimes bill. Still, it's the incongruity that strikes me as comical, since the argument that if we need federal hate crimes legislation, it makes sense to permit potential victims of hate crime to arm themselves against that eventuality in as much of the US as possible. GOProud, a group of gay Republicans who recently split off from the Log Cabin Republicans, has given the amendment its unequivocal support, as have the Pink Pistols.

Actually, two of my best range buddies are a lesbian couple who live in a redneck logging town and ride motorcycles; they carry concealed a fair amount of the time (as do quite a few of their motorcycling friends, interestingly) and are founding embers of the Pink Pistols' Seattle chapter. I'd bet they'd like if this amendment passed, since it would allow them to range across state lines without having to unload and stash their pistols.

It's by no means a given that the amendment will be folded into the Shepard Act, since the possibility exists that the Shepard Act itself will be 2009 defense authorization. I predict that the people who were whingeing about the Coburn amendment to the credit card reform bill (as if irrelevant amendments to "must pass" legislation were anything unusual in Congress) won't have any objection to having hate crimes legislation inserted into defense appropriations.

Personally, I'd like to see the Thune amendment pass solely for the "fuck you" value directed at "may issue" jurisdictions with a record of refusing to issue permits to anyone but the rich, famous and politically connected. Like various counties in California (Marin, Contra Costa), the entire state of Maryland, and of course New York City. Of course, it'd be bad news for firearms instructors providing the courses to get a Utah non-resident permit.

[X_Digger]

1. Lol (re utah non-state permits)

I've been waiting to schedule a class for my TX CHL, and the training center that I chose offers the Utah non-resident license as an additional $40 fee. It only gets me 4 additional states, but I'll probably op to do it since it's so cheap.

[cslinger59]

2. I don't understand the concept of "HATE" crimes.

If I assault you with no provocation then I should have the book thrown at me. No matter if you are white, black, gay, straight, Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

If I randomly take a crowbar to four people and three of them are Christian and one is Muslim should the Christians be treated as a worse crime then on the Muslim? Seems to me just being an arsehole who is swing a crowbar upside folks heads should be the only pertinent thing that matters and I should be dealt with VERY harshly.

[Euromutt]

3. I understand the reasoning, but I haven't made up my mind whether I agree with it

The rationale behind "hate crimes" legislation is that someone who has it in for an entire demographic of people (a particular ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation) is significantly more likely to reoffend than someone who, say, assaults a specific guy he catches sleeping with his wife. So far, so good, in my opinion.

The problem is that if the point is to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, people like muggers tend to be likely to reoffend against a very wide demographic, namely people who carry wallets. Perhaps the argument there is that people who commit violence for money can be more readily rehabilitated than violent bigots. The problem there is, of course, that the American criminal justice system is not known for being particularly effective at rehabilitating anyone.

[zipplewrath]

9. Victim based

We have alot of "victim based" laws. Crimes against kids, police, etc. The reasoning is that they threaten a larger community and are that is their intention in the crime. You can argue with the logic, but it is true we have these laws so I'm not sure why we object to one group having such a designation and not another. The truth is that "hate crimes" legislation could probably be unified into a type of RICO law. If your intent of an criminal act was to threaten and intimidate a larger community, it gets the extra special treatment that hate crime laws create.

[krispos42]

4. All crime has a motivate

Motive determines the class of the crime and the punishment. For example, let's say Person A intentinally points a gun at, shoots and kills Person B. What is the punishment? It depends on motive. It could be there is no punishment (justified self-defense or an accident), manslaughter (spontanious rage) or 1st degree murder (planned, premeditated). We do this according to our standards of decency.

Classifying "hate" as a motive is making violent crimes based soley on hate more unacceptable that if it was being done for, say, an iPod or a wallet.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. It's a thought crime. You are being punished for your thought.

[Deadric Damodred]

6. It's a lot more than that.

It's not just that a person is being punished for their thoughts, they are being presumed guilty of a hate crime. If a white person kills a gay black man, they will be charged with a hate crime no matter what. Even if the white person did not kill the person because they were black or because they were gay, even if the person never had those thoughts in their mind ever, they will be charged with a hate crime. And they won't be able to get out of the hate crime charge, because in the situation of "hate crimes" guilt & innocent is all backwards; YOU have to prove you didn't commit the crime out of hatred. If they've already made up their minds that your motive was hate, you're screwed and your only hope is that you aren't found guilty of anything.

[Caliman73]

7. I have to disagree there

The burden of proof is still on the state to provide evidence of specific charges. The addition of a Hate crime charge must include evidence that the accused attacked the victim either solely or in large part because of their belonging to a protected group. White, Black, Asian, and Latino gang members kill each other in L.A. and their crimes are not charged as hate crimes but as crimes commensurate with their criminal gang activities. The motivation to kill rival gang members may be racial to some degree, but it isn't the primary motivation as seen in the various mixed race gangs that also engage in killings. Now if gang members attack people for the fact that they are White, or Black, or Gay, or Jewish, then that is a hate crime. In the case of Matthew Shepard, the prosecution had to prove that he was targeted specifically because he was gay. That was proven with testimony from people who knew the assailants and documented their desire to hurt gay people. Their defense was that they were merely robbing him.

No one is punished merely for their thoughts. Racists like Limbaugh, Metzger, and others continue to have a forum to display their thoughts in the form of words without any legal problems. It is when those thoughts become provable actions (as in the case of Metzger's "vicarious liability" in the death of the Ethiopian immigrant) that punishment happens.

I tend to agree that a death is a death, but as a poster above noted, motive is a part of the justice system. Killing someone because you got into a fight with them because they cut you off is horrible and you should be separated from society because you cannot control your temper. Killing someone because just because they are a different race, religion, or sexual orientation is particularly antisocial and creates a special condition.

[Callisto32]

8. Perhaps some will be reminded about "full faith and credit."