Orlando Shooting

Sen. Bob Casey Wants to Ban Gun Sales to "Anyone Reasonably Suspected to be Guilty" of Misdemeanor Hate Crimes

One need only be suspected of an ineffective "feel-good law" to be deprived of rights.

|

Reasonably suspicious.
Office of Senator Bob Casey / Wikimedia Commons

In the wake of this past weekend's massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) announced in a press release today that he intends to introduce new legislation which "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." 

What makes Casey's "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" especially noteworthy is that a conviction would no longer be necessary to deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights. Merely being "reasonably suspected to be guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime" would be enough. It is not clear who the senator would authorize to determine whether a person is reasonably or unreasonably suspected to be guilty of any particular crime, much less one that tries to get inside the head of a suspected criminal and police their thoughts. 

Per Casey's press release:

"If you have proven you will commit criminal acts based on hate, you absolutely should not have access to a gun. It's common sense," Senator Casey said. "It is time we as members of Congress do something. If you are a member of Congress and you say you care about security then you have to take steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands and ensure our law enforcement has the resources needed to keep communities safe.

Casey's press release also states that "known hate groups are growing in the United States" and cites the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s statistic that "892 hate groups are currently operating in the United States, up 14 percent since 2014 and almost 33 percent since 2000." Earlier this year, Reason's Jesse Walker examined the SPLC's often very-fuzzy math and its frequent tendendency to define "gang slayings, domestic violence, and other apolitical or ambiguous assaults in which the killer also happens to subscribe to an 'extremist' worldview" to fulfill their pre-determined theory that hate crimes and hate groups are almost always on the rise in the U.S.

Casey has long been a proponent of hate crime laws, which enhance the penalties of criminal behavior based on the identity of the victim and if the motive of the perpetrator was based on hate (rather than envy, rage, greed, etc.) However, there is no evidence that such laws effectively provide enhanced protection against groups who traditionally face discrimination, such as LGBTQ people. But tragedies such as the sickening mass murder in Orlando are opportunities for politicians to "do something," even if all they're doing is creating what Harvard professor Michael Bronski calls "feel-good laws." Bronski told NPR last year:

I think part of what they do is that they actually misdirect us from looking at much deeper issues," he said. "Racism is a problem, homophobia is a problem, violence against immigrants is a problem … so we end up passing these laws and saying 'look at this, we're actually doing something.

Bronski, Ann Pellegrini, and Michael Amico also wrote this in The Nation in 2013:

People who commit crimes and are caught usually get punished. Getting rid of hate crime laws would not let convicted criminals go free. The person who commits a second-degree felony in New York State can already go to prison for seven years. Is doubling—or, as the law euphemistically states it, "enhancing"—that prison sentence from seven to fifteen years going to make it more of a deterrent? Most people and groups, although not all, who oppose hate crime legislation do so because of the enhanced penalty provisions; they see no problem with recording crime statistics in a way that gives a snapshot of social attitudes about LGBT people. But the place to change social attitudes, hearts, and minds is not in prisons. It is in schools, in activist organizations, around the dinner table, at houses of worship and other places where people can talk, disagree and learn that disagreement may be a useful and even productive means of growth.

This is correct. And now that police officers — a group who already enjoy the protections of innumerable laws for violence directed at them — are being classified in some states as a protected group under hate crime laws, even some proponents of hate crime laws are starting to see how "hate" as a motivating factor in violent crime is completely in the eye of the beholder. Kate Wheeling wrote in Pacific Standard last month:

Therein lies the trouble with hate-crime laws, argues James Jacobs, director of New York University's Center for Research in Crime and Justice and author of Hate Crime: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. "It's politically very difficult to oppose any group's effort to be covered," Jacobs says. "So we'll have a fight among potential crime victims about whose victimization is worse." The existence of hate-crime laws, according to Jacobs, forces legislatures to decide which prejudices are more deserving of harsher punishments than others?—?an inherently prejudiced exercise.

Yesterday, Vox shame-published the names of Congresspeople "who voted against protecting gay people from hate crimes." But this phrasing only feeds into the misguided narrative that politicians who "do something" are the righteous guardians of our safety and dissenters are cold-hearted bigots. The reality is conferring special status on certain victims over others — by merely enhancing the penalties of violent crimes — does not make marginalized groups safer, and depriving people of their rights based on "suspicion" is not "common sense."

NEXT: Trump Reiterates His Call for a Ban on Muslim Immigrants Because a Tiny Percentage Are 'Implicated in Terrorism'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Punchable elected face, or most punchable elected face?

    1. I was about to post the same. Would pay money at the county fair to punch that face.

      1. Would pay money at the county fair to punch that face.

        Sounds pretty decidedly like a hate crime and conspiracy to commit a hate crime to me.

        1. No, I would be supporting whatever charity was sponsoring the “Punch Bob Casey in the Face” booth. I’m a charitable guy.

        2. If this guy had his way, your mere mention of a desire to punch his face would be hate-crime enhance misdemeanor. I mean that literally, without a trace of sarcasm.

    2. I wonder what unspeakable sex act he has to imagine to elicit such an unconvincing approximation of a smile.

      1. I’ll text your mother to find out…

    3. Don’t punch it! What if that allows the eyebrows to roam free?!?

        1. Those things have obviously killed before.

          1. “Them eyebrows have tasted human blood before….you can see it!”

      1. It’s not the eyebrows themselves you have to worry about, but the eyebrow mites that dwell within. The thicker the jungle, the hardier the animals.

        1. I assume they act as deployable weapons when they hunt at night.

          1. Bio-mechanical deployable weapons at that.

            And you’re correct, SugarFree, they mostly come out at night… mostly.

            1. Does that mean we should nuke his face from orbit?

              1. It is the only way to be sure.

              2. It’s the only way to be sure.

                1. Swiss!

                  1. Eh don’t take it too bad, Swiss always finishes 2 minutes before you

                2. precautionary principle! you can’t know those eyebrows aren’t going to do something horrific,

    4. He’s my state’s official Empty Suit who got elected because his dad was a pretty good governor, for a classic 70s liberal.

      All of his qualifications to be a US senator reside in his eyebrows.

    5. His expression says “I know I did it. You know I did it. We both know you can’t prove it. And even if you could, I’d just make it go away.”

    1. I was wondering why it’s already been memory holed.

      1. Because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Duh.

        Philadelphia is going to be a total shit-show.

        1. Oh god, yes Philadelphia is going to be a shit show.

          1. Gonna be fun watching the rioters squaring off with the psychopaths of the Philly P.D.

        2. Philly is always a shit show. Or a piss show during the Mummer’s Parade.

      2. The Clintonistas just noticed this and are running with it.

    2. Who the hell is Bernard Sanders?

    3. Yeah, I read that last night. How fucking My Cousin Vinny.

      “Where’re you headed?”

      “Going to Gay Pride.”

      “OMG HE SAID HE’S GONNA BLOW UP GAY PRIDE.”

      The very best part was the breathless addition of “owned camoflage clothing” to the list of reasons why this shit was super serious.

      1. Well, you know who else owned camouflage clothing?

        1. Mr. Lizard?

          1. Wrong type of lizard…jerk

            1. #Colorchanginglizardsmatter

      2. Not a lot of jungle olive drab at gay pride parades. He should have dressed up like Portman in Black Swan to truly blend in.

        1. Not a lot of jungle olive drab at gay pride parades.

          Way to other the uniform-fetishists.

          1. I’m not erasing them, just noting the lack of popularity since the end of don’t ask, don’t tell.

    4. …but this 20-year-old wasn’t a religious fundamentalist. He was a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders…

      Uh-huh.

      1. religious fundamentalist. He was a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

        I’m having trouble with the differences here…

      2. He had an NRA sticker on his car. In case you missed it, the NRA killed a bunch of gays just this weekend.

        1. Now, Crusty, the National Recovery Administration is dead and can’t hurt anyone any longer.

          1. Perhaps they’ve returned as zombies.

    5. The beauty of our country is that you can be a gay socialist gun nut that likes to blow up tanerritte(sp)*

      *outside of California and other liberal Utopias

    6. Did anyone else think it was sort of odd that this guy suddenly popped up, a white male from Indiana, at a Gay Pride event, the day after the Islamic terrorist attack in FL?

      Sounds to me like the guy pulled a stunt to try and get some equal blame for gay hate directed towards the right. Sounds like he got caught with his pants down. Paid Bernie troll?

    7. Also, it’s now being reported that they guy never said anything about wanting to do harm. This is from the cops, they said those reports are false. Only said he was going to attend the event, and apparently, he’s gay.

  2. “Yesterday, Vox shame-published the names of Congresspeople “who voted against protecting gay people from hate crimes.”

    This whole thing might have been prevented if only they had passed a law making the mass murder of gay people illegal.

    1. Then the shooter would really be in big trouble!

    2. Florida has a ‘hate crime’ statute. Doesn’t appear to have prevented this massacre.

  3. lol silly politicians. Laws are for “honest” folk. No law ever stopped a criminal from getting a gun that wanted one. Quit fooling yourselves with your sill laws.

    http://www.Got-Anon.tk

    1. But new laws will definitely stop the scary Islams, won’t they anon-not?

      1. Hillary said she’d “work with silicon valley” to stop these things from happening.

        Anonbot is a creation of Silicon Valley. Therefore, we should listen to the wisdom of Anonbot.

    2. Wow, AppropriateBot.

      Not that anyone was asking, but it was not the deadliest mass shooting in US history. The Orlando shooting was horrifying. Embellishment is not required.

      Particularly relevant and insightful, I thought, was this bit:

      Former Pine Ridge Indian agent Valentine T. McGillycuddy was asked his opinion of the ‘hostilities’ surrounding the Ghost Dance movement, by General Leonard Wright Colby, commander of the Nebraska National Guard (portion of letter dated Jan. 15, 1891):

      “As regards disarming the Sioux, however desirable it may appear, I consider it neither advisable, nor practicable. I fear it will result as the theoretical enforcement of prohibition in Kansas, Iowa and Dakota; you will succeed in disarming and keeping disarmed the friendly Indians because you can, and you will not succeed with the mob element because you cannot.”

      Since 1891.

      1. SFed the link.

      2. Regarding disarmament or firearms bans: … you will succeed in disarming and keeping disarmed the friendly [individuals] because you can, and you will not succeed with the mob element because you cannot.

        Excellent logic.

        I would suggest that the same statement could be adapted to include most anything a government wanted to ban.

      3. Memories are short, and genuine understanding of history is rare.

        Much more recently than the many massacres of indigenous Americans in the late 19th Century is the wholesale slaughter of 76 Americans of all races in Waco, Texas in 1993.

        The only thing unprecedented about the Orlando shooting is that it was a very large body count by a single shooter without use of explosives.

    3. There is something in this Orlando story that ought to put the lie of gun control to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL, and I sincerely hope this gets highlighted:

      The ultimate desire of the gun control freaks is that ONLY law enforcement types be allowed to carry guns. The fact that the shooter was a highly trained, high level security officer would mean that while most regular law-abiding citizens would be depreived their 2A rights, the perpetrator of the largest mass shooting in US history would still have been armed because he was essentially tied to law enforcement.

      But all that aside, the core of our 2A rights boils down to the fact that our rights do NOT flow from the elites.

  4. Merely being “reasonably suspected to be guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime” would be enough.

    Well, no guns for Senator Casey, then!

  5. I consider the SPLC a hate group, along with CAIR.

  6. So we’ll have a fight among potential crime victims about whose victimization is worse.

    This is how the progressive victim-grievance scale was intended to be. Nothing new there.

  7. Yesterday, Vox shame-published the names of Congresspeople “who voted against protecting gay people from hate crimes.”

    I’m reminded of the 2000 election, where we learned that George Bush personally dragged that guy to death behind that pickup truck when he didn’t support hate crimes laws or something like that.

    1. Opposing “commonsense” gun laws makes the Baby Jesus cry.

    2. Only two of them got the death penalty, you know. Bush should of done more.

    3. Enhanced penalties probably don’t do a whole lot to stop crazy people with a death wish. “Shit, I could get an extra 10 years, better not die in a storm of bullets in a firefight with the police”.

  8. But he said “reasonably”. How can anybody have a problem with reasonableness??? Reasonable and “common sense”…the go to weasel words.

    1. “Reasonable” steps taken by a Congress guided by “common sense” and the gumption to “do something”.
      This guy ain’t messing around, he’s the complete package.

  9. Thoughtcrimes for the win.

    Our future gleams brightly.

    1. Like a day-old fish in the sun.

      1. I’ve thought about your comment for a few moments, Dean, and have decided that the idea of thoughtcrimes is much more repugnant to me.

  10. I liked my senator better when he stays under his rock until election time rolls around.

  11. Sounds like Bob Casey wants to maintain some sort of… list.

  12. Yesterday, Vox shame-published the names of Congresspeople “who voted against protecting gay people from hate crimes.”

    Except the the killer here is dead. What exactly are the geniuses over at Vox proposing be done? Locking up his lifeless carcass to stink up the prison?

    1. You clearly miss Vox’s point. Had the GOP not blocked this legislation, 50 gay people would still be alive.

      1. Because a guy willing to engage in mass murder would certainly be deterred by hate crime laws.

        1. It’s Vox-town. They’re all stocked up on crazy.

  13. Shorter = Fuck due process, let’s just strip people’s rights when we feel someone somewhere could potentially be offended.

    1. 14A, FTW!

    2. Ayep. I was going to say that the fucking Leftards won’t be happy until we’ve shredded what little is left of Due Process. Then they will look on in horror and scream uncontrollably when it turns around and happens to them sometime later…..

  14. This is the one white man I can imagine visiting threading parlors.

    1. BDSM of the face.

  15. NYT op-ed:

    Mateen demonstrated again just how potent the mix of ISIS and National Rifle Association ideology is.

    This crazy should die down within a week, right? Please?

    1. No, this is going to carry them all through the convention season, and possibly the election. Those fapping sounds you hear are not only the anti-muslim/anti-gay crowd, but also the gun grabbing proggies.

      1. Never start a gun control war during an election year in Southeast Asia

        1. Are you a Sicilian Lizard?

    2. Well, it’ll be goin’ strong until someone shoots a zoo animal or something. Then that’ll be the new crazy.

      1. This is true, maybe someone will shoot a panda soon and we can get back to normal.

    3. I hope not. It’s a losing strategy, and I welcome more of it.

        1. I’m convinced it’s a recipe for a landslide loss. We’ll see in November.

    4. I didn’t realize the the NRA and ISIS were in cahoots. Damn, the things you learn about from NYT.

      1. Sure. I get American Rifleman magazine. Lots of articles about dressing your wife like a ghost, going on a jihad, and what’s the best weapon for shooting homos.

  16. Anyone who uses the term ‘reasonably suspected’ should be punched immediately. In the nuts.

    Oh, wait.

    *covers nuts with both hands*

  17. Go fuck yourself, Casey. Is that a hate crime?

    1. It’s a sexual assault.

  18. Hey, now we have legislators attacking two civil right simultaneously…

    I feel sick.

    1. You can’t watch this attack and not violate some Constitutional amendment. So which is it gonna be: the first, the second, or the fifth?

      1. Well lets see:

        1st: Both sides. One side wants to eliminate “anti-gay rhetoric”, the other side wants to eliminate a religion.
        2nd: Left
        3rd: Nobody, yet. Though we would be safer if we all had troops quartered in our homes!
        4th: Primarily the right.
        5th: Easily the left.

        1. On the first, I was thinking that Trump and Clinton almost said the exact same thing about censoring speech on the Internet to fight ISIS recruitment/radicalization.

  19. “It is time we as members of Congress do something.”

    Ahhh. I’m never satisfied until I see the money shot.

  20. Remember when we looked down our noses at the tyrants in apartheid South Africa, where a minister could ban someone with a stroke of the pen, depriving him or her of basic rights? In the South African case, that meant the right to choose one’s residence and to gather with other people in groups – and the right to be mentioned in the media.

    Now we’re lumbering in that direction, as bureaurats are empowered to select people who, at a stroke of the pen, will be stopped from using airplanes or carrying firearms.

    And the same logic would justify banning any mention of them in the media, though before *that* can happen, the First Amendment will have to become as “constroversial” and marginal as the Second.

    1. If you want to know the general direction in which we’re headed, check this out:

      “The banning of individuals in South Africa was a practice virtually unique among nations with legal systems derived from Roman or common-law traditions. At the order of the minister, a person deemed a communist, a terrorist, a member of a banned organization, or otherwise a threat to the security and public order of the state could be confined to his home or immediate surroundings, prohibited from meeting with more than one person at a time (other than his family), forced to resign any offices in any organization, prohibited from speaking publicly or writing for any publication, and barred from certain areas, buildings, and institutions, such as law courts, schools, and newspaper offices. Moreover, the banned person could not be quoted in any publication. The effect was to render the banned person a public nonentity. Opponents of the apartheid regime could be banned on the whim of a minister or even a local police officer and be deprived of any legal safeguards in the event of their disappearance or death. From 1950 to 1990 more than 2,000 people were banned in South Africa , such as ANC leader Albert Luthuli, who was banned and confined to his home for lengthy periods of time in the 1950s.”

      1. Bantu Stephen Biko.

  21. Anyone Reasonably Suspected to be Guilty

    Um…wouldn’t another way to say that be anyone under indictment? And I’m pretty sure the 4473 asks you whether you’re under indictment for a felony or a serious misdemeanor.

    1. Actually, 100% sure.

      1. We should pass a law against lying on the 4473.

      2. And the PA Uniform Firearms code requires sheriffs to run a background check before issuing a license to carry firearms, which includes searching for indictments:

        (d) Sheriff to conduct investigation.–The sheriff to whom the application is made shall:

        (1) investigate the applicant’s record of criminal conviction;

        (2) investigate whether or not the applicant is under indictment for or has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;

        Of course, that is state law, but it is law in the state that fuckwit is supposed to represent. I’d be willing to bet that in most other states the provisions are similar for concealed carry, and since “hate” crimes will have the potential to carry well more than a year this seems like a non problem.

    2. Could be, could be. Could very well be.

      A broader interpretation might be a cop’s opinion on what you said on the Twitter this one time.

  22. received a hate crime sentence enhancement

    hate crime sentence enhancement

    What the actual fuck?

    We’re doomed.

  23. Are you now, or have you ever been, a bad person?

    *Nebulous definition of “bad” to be provided ad hoc.

    1. You have to come at it from a different angle:

      “If I asked a bad person if you were bad, what would he say?”

    2. Where I live, bad == you don’t compost.

      1. Where I live, bad == you don’t compost.

        Or in my case, you don’t recycle and/or you use those icky moistened bum-wipes to feel extra-clean. Gaia haz a sad.

  24. Yesterday, Vox shame-published the names of Congresspeople “who voted against protecting gay people from hate crimes.”

    I wasn’t aware we were already voting to stop immigration from Muslim countries.

    *ducks*

    1. Surely you’re not saying there’s any hate in the Middle East are you?

      1. There isn’t, and that’s why we can safely send guns confiscated from these haters here, to the good terrorists in Syria to help fight the bad terrorists.

  25. known hate groups are growing in the United States

    I’d like to see that list:

    NRA members

    Republicans

    Libertarians

    You get the picture.

    1. You forgot the Boy Scouts

  26. reasonably suspected to be guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime

    This is clearly unconstitutional, or has the constitution already been annulled by these dickweeds?

    1. If a bear shits in the woods and there’s no one around, does the Pope care?

      1. According the the anthropic principle, I dunno.

  27. If you have proven you will commit criminal acts based on hate

    Because we should be prosecuting people for thought-crime…

    1. That’s where this is headed.

  28. Like most of the country, I’m still in shock.

    “Fortunately, I have a ready array of boilerplate preconceptions and simplistic solutions to trot out.”

  29. Yup. Time to dust off every worthless piece-of-shit gun control bill that they’ve had written up and waiting to exploit the right tragedy.

    1. If Clinton is elected, you may as well say goodbye to the 2nd amendment. She will slowly stack the court with the most fanatical gun control shitheads (Barack Obama) on the planet and then enact gun control measures by executive order. Then there will be lawsuits challenging the constitutionality and the new judges will rubber stamp whatever she did. GOP congress will hide their heads in the sand and that will be it.

  30. Oh jesus, ok, I need a ruling. What is this:

    “The appalling attack on the LGBTQ2 community this weekend in Orlando and this news today serve as devastating reminders for all of us that vicious acts of hatred and violence cannot be tolerated in any form,”

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic…..-1.3632389

    1. 2-spirited you big bigot head.

      1. Big bigot head, I’m so stealing that.

    2. Let’s internet.

      lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, and 2-spirited

      The answer is “2-spirited”. It’s not clear how that differs from transsexual, or why the taxonomy is so detailed, but there you go.

      Questions: Are asexuals covered under “queer”? If so, why? If not, why not? And is there bitter infighting between asexuals and sexuals?

      1. Way to hate on the Native Americans, bub.

      2. How far can they go with this?

        LGBTQ2+Z-B==HYX/F2

        You’re expected to remember that or you’re a big bigot head (thanks, Crusty).

        1. I prefer the acronym LGBTTIQQ2S: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited.

          Notice there is no b there, for bigot, so you are not on the list.

          1. What about otherkins? Why are you othering the otherkins, big bigot head?

          2. LGBTTIQQ2S

            Notice there is no b there, for bigot

            Ummm. . . .

            1. It would have to be LBBGGTIQQ2S.

      3. So we differentiate between gay and lesbian… I still don’t know what “queer” is although I’ve heard “gender queer” to indicate trans people who may have only decided they’re not their biological sex, but haven’t gone to any dramatic steps like surgery or hormone therapy. Now I have to google “2-spirited” to know what that means. Because it’s not self-evident.

        And is this an identity spectrum that’s only recognized in Canada? Because I’ve seen some pretty full-retard additions occurring here, with the LGBTQ(I) but not the 2.

        Is it acceptable to mix the letters up? BLTQI2G?

        1. Back when I was younger, queer was a slur against gays. I can’t keep up with this idiocy, mostly because I don’t give a shit.

        2. Now I have to google “2-spirited” to know what that means. Because it’s not self-evident.

          Because you, like most white cis-European invaders, know nothing about the past and culture of indigenous Americans. Shame on you.

          1. In a past life, I was a buffalo. Then the slant eyed 2 legged devils came across the Bering land bridge, massacred my buffalo brethren, and claimed they own the land. Shame on the ‘native’ Americans.

        3. It has always been the Ceeb’s self-appointed job to instruct the Lesser Ones? concerning the vast panoply of sometimes-vanishingly-small minorities and their endless butt-hurts. And the Ceeb’s executives wonder why they continually lose audience share everywhere in Canada that people have a choice in which news programming they can watch…

      4. 2-spirited means you feel like you are both genders despite being in a male or female body. Hermaphroditic gender.

        1. So are 2-spirited people allowed to use any bathroom they want or are only trans people allowed that?

          1. I think they just pee in the water fountain.

            1. Straight people already do that.

    3. I found this, Paul.

      Although I am not certain that is the same meaning in “LGBTQ2” I admit to a shortage of concern for the topic and am not inclined to research further.

      1. I just don’t want to end up standing tall before the man if I use the incorrect terms.

      2. *grumbles*

        Try this.

    4. I reiterate that this “LGBTQ” acronym is gaytriarchical and prioritizes the authority of the cisgendered

      TQBLG better represents how we should approach rectifying relative gender marginalization

      1. Wait a minue… I thought that gender is fluid and really only a social construct. How about this term:

        TBD (to be decided).

        That ends the debate.

        1. Your hate crime has been noted and forwarded to the relevant database-administrators.

          1. Who, if they’re like most of the DB-admins I’ve met in my working life, will promptly screw it up, usually in a very creative way.

            1. They also frequently go on hate rants against programmers, who they realize are their superiors. No guns from DB admins.

    5. Some days, I’m actually grateful for the piping.

  31. “Sen. Bob Casey Wants to Ban Gun Sales to “Anyone Reasonably Suspected to be Guilty” of Misdemeanor Hate Crimes”
    See? Right there in the quote, he’s just advocating ‘reasonable’ gun outlawing.
    We can all reason together on how you can be denied rights guaranteed by the Constitution!

  32. – things like: full-throated defense of the rapidly-being-shredded 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment etc.
    – strong pushes on criminal justice & police-use-of-force reform; end drug war, etc.
    – defense of encryption & opposition to thought-policing on the internet; basically, its increasingly where ‘shit happens’ and the restrictions that statists want in ‘real life’ will be tested in online-space first
    – pushing for free trade and a dismantling of the economy-strangling regulatory state
    etc.

    I think these all qualify as spawn of the precautionary principle.

    Considering how many”libertarians” in the H&R community have no trouble promoting policies firmly rooted in the precautionary principle, my hopes are not high that we’ll ever turn back the tide.

    1. not sure i understand.

      do you mean, the noted ‘erosion of the 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment‘ are due to other people’s application of the precautionary principle?

      (e.g. “hate speech” allows for speech-restriction, which people increasingly want… thinking that ‘repressing racists’ will somehow reduce the likelihood of ‘racial violence’ rather than exacerbate it)

      the reason i highlighted the things i did was because i feel they are things which libertarians can (potentially) rally support for from various non-libertarian constituencies.

  33. guilty of a misdemeanor hate crime

    Uh-oh. I called some kid an indian-giver in the fourth grade.

    Hide the guns, Ma!

  34. Really? Casey would want the SPLC to manage the hate groups list?! Yikes!

  35. I wonder if anyone has tried some kind of back door argument against “hate crime” sentencing via the 14th amendment. i.e. Equal protection under the law should be applicable to victims of murder or assault, among other crimes, regardless of the victim’s skin color, religion, and so on. Therefore, the sentence ought to be equally applied. “The People of the state of _____ v ____” could be a help since the “victim(s)” of these crimes are the “people of the state of ______”.
    In an effort to be clear, I mean that a victim of the crime is not a member of a “protected class”, because the “victim” is the state of “your state’s name here”, clearly NOT a minority.

    The only way I can see to restore some sense of law to this whole shit show is to force the SCOTUS to recognize that double secret probation is bullshit. Tie them in knots because their preference for latter amendments will cause them to validate the BOR.

    Or not, I suppose revolution is still a (last) option.

  36. I wonder if anyone has tried some kind of back door argument against “hate crime” sentencing via the 14th amendment. i.e. Equal protection under the law should be applicable to victims of murder or assault, among other crimes, regardless of the victim’s skin color, religion, and so on. Therefore, the sentence ought to be equally applied. “The People of the state of _____ v ____” could be a help since the “victim(s)” of these crimes are the “people of the state of ______”.
    In an effort to be clear, I mean that a victim of the crime is not a member of a “protected class”, because the “victim” is the state of “your state’s name here”, clearly NOT a minority.

    The only way I can see to restore some sense of law to this whole shit show is to force the SCOTUS to recognize that double secret probation is bullshit. Tie them in knots because their preference for latter amendments will cause them to validate the BOR.

    Or not, I suppose revolution is still a (last) option.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.