H.R.1913 - Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Short: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 as passed house.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 205 total comments.

txlwyr 04/13/2009 12:23pm
in reply to fulmin8r Apr 13, 2009 11:56am

You’d be right if practicing their calling includes acts of violence. Moreover, it gives justifications under the commerce clause and the spending clause. There is no explicit restriction on speech of any kind. Nor does it discriminate against any religious group nor codify any religious ideal.

Read it first, dude.

GitNaware 04/15/2009 2:37pm

No explicit restrictions on speech or thought… except that it calls it a hate crime and thus assumes that the law can interpret thoughts. My whole problem is that if it is a crime – prosecute the crime and not make standards based on whether there is “real or perceived” hate involved!

prodriver8108 04/26/2009 9:15pm
in reply to kjschultz99 Apr 19, 2009 7:05pm

I tend to agree. Why are we wasting are tax dollars over another bill when there seems to be enough laws to handle those that actually commit a crime. I don’t agree with what everyone else says and I’m sure they don’t agree with what I say. Does that mean we should be allowed to say it at all. What are we? A bunch of pansies…mama he called be a bad word. LOL Its laughable that grown men and women are actually seriously considering this in Congress.

dcs0582 04/27/2009 4:52pm

So consider the following:

1. A drunken crowd of openly homosexual males exit a bar and see me walking alone down the street.

2. Feeling empowered by their number and inebriation, they hurl hateful names like “breeder” and “hetero scum” at me.

3. Without provocation, they then proceed to chase me down and beat me up.

4. This is all observed and reported to local police by a number of disinterested bystanders.

Does that then mean that my local law enforcement agency can seek assistance to investigate and prosecute this hate crime under HR 1913? If not, then this bill is crap and not at all what the authors would have you to believe it is.

I’m all for live and let live as well as equal rights under the law. Having legislation protect a specific class? Not so much …

Freshmanwave 04/23/2009 4:50pm

This act, as I read it, only covers acts of violence, so there is no “freedom of speech restrained” issue.

kjschultz99 04/19/2009 7:05pm

There are already laws for people who commit violent acts against others for any reason. Motives run rampant and the more random the crime the more it affects the ‘well-being’ of the community – mainly while the person has not yet been caught. This legislation does nothing to eliminate or even reduce crimes based on ‘hate’. If anything, it entices the very motives they claim to address.

jaysays 06/05/2009 5:24am
in reply to walrus58 May 19, 2009 8:34pm

First Amendment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

While the words “separation of church and state” do not appear within the first amendment, it has been quoted by several opinions handed down by the Supreme Court.

bbs 05/03/2009 4:00pm
in reply to tednunn Apr 16, 2009 10:24am

I disagree. They are already equally protected under the 14th ammendment. Vandalism is vandalism and the crime to them should be no more than if it was painted on my house.

prodriver8108 04/26/2009 9:11pm
in reply to ftcopeland2002 Apr 22, 2009 10:57am

Patriot Act already gives them this ability. They need little reason, only suspicion.

alexgill4 04/23/2009 7:43pm
in reply to fulmin8r Apr 13, 2009 11:56am

This bill has NOTHING to do with hate speech, or separation of Church and State and you know it. Typical evangelical Republicans twisting everything as a scare tactic. You don’t even KNOW the meaning of Separation of Church and State!!! You have A LOT TO LEARN!

Lara1967 04/27/2009 10:58pm
in reply to shawnyboy69 Apr 26, 2009 10:35pm


GLBT people are americans too, since the consitution says equal rights to all americans that includes them as well.

The America is NOT a christian Nation, never was and never will be, since the First Nation people who lives here their ancestors were native americans who were NOT christians.

This bill is not about the 14 admendment, it about people who attacks,beats,rape,kill based on the hatered of their ignorant reasons. thinking cause someone is different they should be allowed to be abused.

Buckskin1 04/20/2009 5:57pm

I agree with this bill being unconstitutional. It is just one more freedom being placed in jeopardy by the current administration. Look at the DHS assessment released April 7th to law enforcement across the nation. That in itself is a hate crime as well as profiling before arrest are to be made. It is also totally unconstitutional because it infringes upon religion, free speech and rights to peaceable assembly. It is only going to get worse before it gets better. It will take all Americans (people who still believe in what the Constitution stands for and why it was written) to handle this crisis. Wake up people because the wheels of change are rolling real fast and at present the government is trying to become CFO, CEO, President, Vice President and Board of Directors for more financial institutions. Before long they will have all our money, at least the part that is left when China gets ready to call our hand on our loans. Where are all the watchdogs when you need them?

pennyarc7 04/20/2009 8:24am

This Bill needs to be defeated, it is a direct attack on States and individual rights.

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction

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

This leaves the door open for the Federal Government to determine when it needs to move in and take over at the State level.

neil459 07/21/2009 11:25am

A crime is a crime. It does not matter why the crime was committed or what race, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever the victim is. Prosecute the crime. If this is not happening, then its the prosecutor and the government at fault, not the laws.

This is just political pandering at best and racists at worst. Does this mean that crimes against whites are not going to carry the same penalty. Does this mean that crimes against heterosexuals are not going to carry the same penalty. And on an on for each “protected” group. We do not need more racism, we need less. We do not need more religious prosecution we need less. All this bill does is cover up the fact where inequality exist its the fault of government. Where these biases exists, lets change the Judges and Prosecutors.

Lets attack the real problem and not allow political propaganda to cover it up.

b58 06/18/2009 10:27pm

I don’t think anyone in congress or senate can read . If they could there is already laws written for hate crimes. They just keep writing laws on top of others.

krystaltgirl 05/01/2009 5:04am

“The Anti-Christian Caucus of the U.S. House of Representativeshas acted today to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose Bible speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible.

“A pastor’s sermon could be considered ‘hate speech’ under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on ‘sexual orientation.’ The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

krystaltgirl 04/30/2009 8:45pm

I have said it before and I will say it again this bill does not bring special treatment it just evens the playing field. Yes there are laws that provide justice for violent crimes…the problem stems from those who don’t feel I have the same worth as them (given that I’m damned to hell and all for simply being transgendered and gay) and then aren’t willing to apply those laws. As I said before just simply read all the comments here and on christian web sites to know how hated we are!!!!! (I have been quoted many times before as saying I will GLADLY walk through the gates of hell if heaven is full of all the hypocritical christians, thankfully I know that my judgement will not come from them.)

BartelsK 05/02/2009 7:16am
in reply to tednunn Apr 16, 2009 10:24am

You defeat your argument with your example. This bill only protects 1 class (that is by choice on birth). That class is sexual orientation. When they attempted to ad amandments to protect the pregnant, the elderly and veterans those amendments were shot down. So your wexamply of a Jewish hate crime willn ot be protected as a hate crime under this bill it will just be vandolism.

JWoodward 04/28/2009 11:22am
in reply to Wolfglar Apr 28, 2009 9:55am

Bodily injury is limited to physical bodies…the law generally does not concern itself with spiritual bodies (aka souls)

And the only time you would have to worry about your preaching rising to the level of a hate crime under this bill is if you were doing as some really extreme folks have done and call for your followers to physically hurt others.

This is not about words or your right to express yourself, it is about actions that may come from those words.

Let’s say that my religion says black hair is considered a sign of the devil:
My believing black hair is a sign of the devil – is protected.
My telling others that black hair is against God’s word and a sin – also protected.

My tying someone up and shaving their head to remove the offending black hair – not protected.
My encouraging others to do the same – also not protected.

Again, it is actions at issue here, not words – except in the limited case that the words incite others to act.

dozermdc 05/06/2009 3:56am

This bill is ridicules!!! According to it’s language a person goes to a church service and hears that the bible teaches against homosexuality. This same person then goes out and performs an ‘act of violence’ against a homosexual then the pastor can be arrested for inciting acts of violence. Since when are we holding innocent people accountable for the crimes of the criminals. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR AMERICA. What’s next, are we going to hold parents responsible for the crimes of their grown children; hold teachers responsible for the crimes of their students. Where do we draw the line. It is high time for America to start advocating responsibility for one’s own actions.

Wolfglar 04/28/2009 9:55am

There is a problem, This Sec. Does not contain the wording: gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. If I were a lawyer(and I am not) this section could be misused. I were a preacher talking out about homosexuality, my speech could be interpreted as an attempt to cause bodily injury to a person, because this section does not define an attempt to cause bodily injury whether physically or mentally or spiritually. This bill does not restrict freedom or speech, it just gives consequences for people who might talk out against someone or a group of individuals. We have plenty of legislation out there to prosecute individuals for crimes of every nature. It would not be equal rights if one group or individual was targeted against.

MercilessPit 04/26/2009 8:17pm

Trying to add the word ‘hate’ to the word ‘crime’ is a joke and is a racist move at it’s core. More severs selective punishments dependant to the race of the offender is unconstitutional. Conyers introduces and supports race based bills more than anything else. He should be expelled for his racist agenda.

jaysays 06/05/2009 5:19am
in reply to fulmin8r Apr 13, 2009 11:56am

The bill does not prohibit your pastor from preaching that “gays” are going to hell, it prevents your pastor from sending them there.

Spam Comment

tgentry69 04/28/2009 5:00pm

OK , just think there is more into this BILL I turly Do NOT THINK IT IS ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT GAYS IT IS TO DO about what we say about God in anyway shap . I am Gay and I see right into this BILL I VOTE AND STAND UP FOR NO, NO,NO,NO AND NO AGAIN . STAND UP WE ARE in the U.S.A. FREEDOM OF talking about God or anything that is love is going to be taken away .

krystaltgirl 11/21/2009 3:29pm
in reply to Ebin Nov 21, 2009 3:12pm

Honey I really couldn’t careless about what’s mature and what’s not or who’s right and who’s wrong. As a transgendered woman who has seen her fair share of intolerance and hate coming from the Christians including my parents, I long ago decided that I will take my rights legally or illegally. I no longer wait for the approval of the moral majority. The passage of this bill is a great step forward, but I can assure you I armed myself along time ago and haven’t been in fear of hateful people ever since.

jaysays 06/05/2009 5:28am
in reply to 2100km May 23, 2009 9:41pm

If they kill her because she’s white or heterosexual, they would, even under this bill.

The suspect class with the most hate crimes committed against them is “Race” with African Americans reporting the most crimes against them, followed by Religion, with Jewish people topping that category. Third is sexual orientation, with the largest number of reports coming from gay men. So… yeah… it protects everyone. In fact, the FBI report even shows Hate Crimes against 22 heterosexuals and 749 white people.

It helps to do a little research.


jamessays 07/27/2009 7:18pm
in reply to jaysays Jun 05, 2009 5:24am


Ebin 11/13/2009 9:54am
in reply to LastStand300 Nov 06, 2009 4:35am

Oh yeah… Last one I promise.

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man”-Thomas Jefferson

“Lighthouses are more useful than churches”-Benjamin Franklin

“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it”-John Adams

So there is a small amount of the Atheism our country was founded on. Yes there were some Christians. But most of the Founding Fathers were in fact atheists.

jaysays 06/05/2009 5:20am
in reply to bbs May 03, 2009 4:04pm

The Canadian Law is a “Hate Speech” law, not a “Hate Crimes” law. The Law in Canada is very different in wording than the U.S. proposal. Please research Canadian law before assuming that it applies in the United States.

Vote on This Bill

18% Users Support Bill

301 in favor / 1375 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments