Now, thanks to Senator Bob Casey, it has expanded to an attack on the Second Amendment by a United States Senator.
People are using "Hate Crimes" to further their personal bigotry against firearms ownership. Unfortunately, at least one of these people is a U.S. Senator, with powers and influence beyond most of we common citizens:
Sen. Casey unveils new gun legislation in Pittsburgh | WPXI:
“We may not be able to extinguish all hate, but we can take action to limit the damage so we don’t have to have these types of press conferences in the future,” Peduto said.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act denies the use of a gun to anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime under federal, state or tribal law who are found to be motivated by hate or bias against a victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
Pittsburgh, PA - Today, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) announced that he is introducing legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of those who commit criminal acts based on hate. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would prohibit the purchase, possession or shipment of a firearm by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime or who received a hate crime sentence enhancement, and prohibit the sale of firearms to anyone reasonably suspected to be guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime. Casey also called for other actions to prevent gun violence, including a ban on military-style weapons, limits on clips and magazine sizes, a ban on those on the terrorist watchlist from purchasing firearms and universal background checks
“That’s going to prevent you from getting a weapon you can use to continue your hate,” Casey said.
For a 'misdemeanor'?
I do not have any objection to penalizing folks who are assertively protecting people who are attacked because of their sexual orientation.
But I DO have a problem with folks who arbitrarily decide that the best way to punish those attackers is to deny their constitutional rights.
Senator Bob Casey deserves credit for protecting his constituent; but when his solution involves abrogation of the Second Amendment Rights of another, I say .. he has gone too far.
As far as I can tell, there are very few legal cases before the Supreme Court which involve one Constitutional Right which may be considered to contradict another.
But Casey's proposal to punish someone by depriving him of his Constitutional Rights is carrying the concept of prejudice much too far.
Can you say: "Never Happened Yet", Brother?"
(I knew you could.)