I read H.R. 1592, Ted Kennedy's bill that just passed the house, putting onto our tipping scales another hate crime farce. You can click on the bill here. On the surface, the bill seems innocent enough, but anything that Ted Kennedy pushes and anything from the mouth of John Conyers is to me forever suspect.
Section 3 (a) 1 (C) states:
(C) "is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws."
If I were a prosecutor, I would say that this paragraph simply pertains to the act itself; if it could be proven that the motivation for the act was an actual or perceived prejudice, it would turn the violence into a hate crime. However, that is just me, and perhaps many other people. But as tight as it appears, I believe that a liberal/leftist prosecutor looking at an expanded case could include a "co-conspirator"; for example, "motivation in this case was based on a perceived prejudice transmitted to the individual by Pastor John Q. Somebody in a series of sermons, the text of which is attached. If the weapon were a firearm, an investigation into where he or she acquired the firearm would be automatic (pardon the pun). If he or she were armed also with the "weapon of prejudice", I am certain that the same investigation would ensure. A wily prosecutor could make a case that the conspirator element was implicit. If you think it is an unfair stretch, so do I. But I would not bet a liberal prosecutor would not try it.
The wording of the laws of this land must be too tight to allow for even the slightest possibility of misinterpretation, because that is what some folks do best: misread, misinterpret, and abuse laws. Why would we need this particular law anyway? And we have already seen how partisan judges can be. Besides, we have enough on our books now to satisfy the most ardent hate-crime fanatic.
Another part of my objection is that sometimes the left knows that one bill won't do it; they are experienced with gun laws. They know that banning everything will not work, so they ban category D, not too many people are fond of category D, so they let it go. But in interpretation, when they put in afterwards the exact firearms that fit category D, they "negligently" include C and most of B also. But nobody notices because they were only talking about D. Baby steps, perhaps, but effective. Now that they control about 75% of what they want, they can chip away the protections against the others, like they chip away our sovereignty. Even if they had no intention of misinterpreting this law, it may be only the baby step; and the next step may be another surreptitious baby step.
Sorry. I certainly never trusted Kennedy, and I certainly do not trust Conyers. And besides that, I can't see the Democrats sponsoring any bill that is not directed at their opposition: anyone who thinks differently than they do.
HJS
Section 3 (a) 1 (C) states:
(C) "is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws."
If I were a prosecutor, I would say that this paragraph simply pertains to the act itself; if it could be proven that the motivation for the act was an actual or perceived prejudice, it would turn the violence into a hate crime. However, that is just me, and perhaps many other people. But as tight as it appears, I believe that a liberal/leftist prosecutor looking at an expanded case could include a "co-conspirator"; for example, "motivation in this case was based on a perceived prejudice transmitted to the individual by Pastor John Q. Somebody in a series of sermons, the text of which is attached. If the weapon were a firearm, an investigation into where he or she acquired the firearm would be automatic (pardon the pun). If he or she were armed also with the "weapon of prejudice", I am certain that the same investigation would ensure. A wily prosecutor could make a case that the conspirator element was implicit. If you think it is an unfair stretch, so do I. But I would not bet a liberal prosecutor would not try it.
The wording of the laws of this land must be too tight to allow for even the slightest possibility of misinterpretation, because that is what some folks do best: misread, misinterpret, and abuse laws. Why would we need this particular law anyway? And we have already seen how partisan judges can be. Besides, we have enough on our books now to satisfy the most ardent hate-crime fanatic.
Another part of my objection is that sometimes the left knows that one bill won't do it; they are experienced with gun laws. They know that banning everything will not work, so they ban category D, not too many people are fond of category D, so they let it go. But in interpretation, when they put in afterwards the exact firearms that fit category D, they "negligently" include C and most of B also. But nobody notices because they were only talking about D. Baby steps, perhaps, but effective. Now that they control about 75% of what they want, they can chip away the protections against the others, like they chip away our sovereignty. Even if they had no intention of misinterpreting this law, it may be only the baby step; and the next step may be another surreptitious baby step.
Sorry. I certainly never trusted Kennedy, and I certainly do not trust Conyers. And besides that, I can't see the Democrats sponsoring any bill that is not directed at their opposition: anyone who thinks differently than they do.
HJS
No comments:
Post a Comment