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 61-90 of 205 total comments.

  • alexgill4 04/23/2009 8:02pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    State of Vermont made a Supreme Court ruling into law and some of the Republicans stated that they should protect businesses and individuals from serving anyone that was in a same sex marriage. I find that unconstitutional… So if I were as a gay man stated I didn’t want to provide you any services because of your religion that would NOT be ok? But it would be A OKAY to discriminate against someone going into a florist, etc? ….Republicans also state there shouldn’t be any hate crimes laws…I don’t see them working hard to eliminate it all together!!!!

  • thecat 04/23/2009 9:24pm

    I’m totally against anything that will go against our present Constitution, which was written by men of wisdom, not the greedy politicians of today.The only thing today’s politician seems to believe in is money,and power, and only for themselves. They are leading our Country down a path that will destroy it. They’re doing more harm to race relations then in the Civil Rights era.You would have thought they would have learned by now you can’t regulate morality, free thought, and free will; but they continue to try. We are not robots to be controlled by those few weak individuals who are acting like spoiled children.They won, so everyone else must lose. GROW UP and do what is best for the United States.

  • kshrn 04/23/2009 9:55pm

    This bill in unnecessary. A violent crime against any person is abhorrent and should be punished to the full extent of the law. A person’s race, religious affiliation, gender or sexual orientation should not affect how the offender is punished. Should a white male who muders a black woman be punished more than if he would have murdered a white woman? Should a black male receive harsher treatment for a crime committed against a gay black male over a straight black male? No. Proper investigation should be performed and the offender brought to justice. We do not need the federal government to get involved with this issue at a state and local level.

  • Comm_reply
    JWoodward 04/28/2009 2:58pm

    You are right…a crime committed should be prosecuted to regardless of a person’s race, religion, gender, etc.

    However a “hate crime” designation is an added on to compensate for the damage done to other members of that class.

    If someone goes around town killing every 17th person – it is horrible & a tragedy. But the impact is fairly spread across the whole community.

    If that same person only targets Baptists…then there is an increased impact on all Baptists. This is what the hate crime laws try to address. It is not saying that Baptist are more or less deserving of life, but it instead does recognize that sometimes a single act can act to terrorize a whole group of people.

  • Comm_reply
    roadlesstraveled 04/30/2009 9:06am

    Yes, I agree with you. But!,who gets to determine if it was a hate crime? The federal government, who says that now they can determine what the perpetrator was thinking and what the victim was thinking.

    1. Does the federal government have all the resources needed to prosecute all these “new” hate crime offernders?

    2. What technology are they using to pier into our minds?

  • Spam Comment

  • 1stRichard 04/25/2009 5:46pm

    Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Pedophiles and Gay are more deserving then vets, I am seeing a lot of anger on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvFsVgiy9EA

    Furthermore H.R. 1913 should be considered unconstitutional

    This makes me wonder, how much further, what is beyond being fed up….

  • thecat 04/26/2009 8:17pm

    YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE TOLERANCE TO SOMEONE’S DIFFERENCES. BY TRYING, YOU’LL MAKE IT WORSE FOR THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT, AND MAKE THE HATE STRONGER. It’s a shame people aren’t more tolerant, but they aren’t. As long as there are people of different colors, faiths, sexual orientations, religions, and politics, people will not always get along.History has shown that anytime you try to force an issue, it gets much worse before it gets better, if at all. It seems to me, the writers of this bill are the ones who are the least tolerant of everyone else.

  • 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.

  • callagan 04/26/2009 10:15pm

    So Much for Transparency…..Are they going to pass it in the middle of the night? Oh, Barney you are so GAY!.

  • callagan 04/26/2009 10:17pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    What part of “equal protection under the law” is confusing?

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Lara1967 04/27/2009 10:58pm

    Boy,

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Theultimateg 04/28/2009 5:07pm

    You make a very good point. Equal protection under the law is afforded to all Americans, so why do we need legislation that offers up special protection to any specific race/class of individual? This bill is nonsense.

  • Spam Comment

  • Usurpations 04/27/2009 3:08am

    I read it and it seems that this is just another vague useless regurgitation of laws already in existence, a gross waste of time, paper, and ultimately serves little except to extend Federal oversight at the State level. Additionally it would provide yet another opportunity for abuse by the ACLU and other self serving organizations with unproductive agendas.

  • papermaker1287 04/27/2009 10:32am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This Bill violates the first ammendment of the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

  • 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 …

  • Comm_reply
    JWoodward 04/28/2009 11:01am

    Yes, the above situation would be considered a hate crime – because you were targeted BECAUSE of your perceived sexual orientation.

  • Comm_reply
    eszeto 04/29/2009 5:11pm

    I disagree. dcs0582 would not be covered under this law because when similar legislation on the state level is applied, it is only applied to protect those whose sexual orientation is contrary to the accepted norm. These laws are designed to protect those who would be “oppressed” and a heterosexual man or woman is not “oppressed” in our society.

  • phans4u 04/27/2009 6:59pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This is also largely to insinuate homosexuals as a federally-protected class and protect pedophiles, the latter of whom is identified and registered BY law enforcement bureaucracy “for purposes of protecting the community”—the spiraling, labrynthian absurdity of the criminal and corrections bureaucracy.
    truthtellers . org

  • Lara1967 04/27/2009 10:50pm
    Link Reply
    + -2
    Well from reading all the responds from the radical hate christians, I hope the bill passes, cause the way I see it, your hate is the reason why we are in wars and killing innocent people based on a book called the bible. The ones who does the crime of hate,radical christian, radical zionists or any kind of radical religious group of people goes out and harms a person by beating them, killing them then yes that is a Hate crime. And the way I see it, if your bible or anykind of holy book profess HATE then it should be abolished as such…

    I wonder would Jesus do the things as some of the radical christians do against others? by the way I read yes some of them do…

    Most of you so called christians doesnt know what separation of church and state is, it means your radical religion book stays out of the laws of the state… but then again most radical christians doesnt read their bible, they only listen to the lip services of their pastors.

    hypocritics..

  • Wolfglar 04/28/2009 9:54am

    If I may make a comment, I was reading the Bill and I saw under Sec. 7. Prohibition of Certain Hate Crimes Acts, Under the title Sec. 249. Hate Crimes Acts, Under Subsection (a) In General-, Paragraph (1) It states,

    “OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person-”.

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    JWoodward 04/28/2009 11:22am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    roadlesstraveled 04/30/2009 9:19am

    So if someone at the 2008 Sarah Palin or McCain campaign rallies, attacks someone that falls under this “protected” category, Sarah Palin or whomever was speaking/rallying could be prosecuted under federal law….am I correct?

    I just used Palin/McCain just because it was the most recent example I could think of.

  • jeekmom 04/28/2009 11:04am

    hate crimes too broadly defined

  • Comm_reply
    JWoodward 04/28/2009 3:10pm

    So how would you define it?

  • 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 .

  • kieroneil 04/28/2009 5:36pm

    This is a political bill and we should all be wondering why the Feds want to get involved in local law enforcement.

    For those of you saying that this will restrict free speech … read the darn thing before commenting. It EXPLICITLY states that it will not restrict free speech.


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