Pages

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Look At The Possibilities

To save the readers some time. I highlighted and put in bold print what I saw, and I'm not even a lawyer. I posted the whole thing so you could see where my interpretations came from. This is the actual bill that congress passed. No doubt seasoned lawyers could take this and run with it. You can't listen to the liberal twists. They plan to lull you to sleep before you get to the fat of the bill. It's almost at the end. To see the possible dangers of this legislation. You have to read the whole bill.

110th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1592

AN ACT
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(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.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) 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--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), 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 religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2007

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:53 PM

    Common:

    For the record, I am not for gay marriage, and I respect your sincerity on this issue. I read the bill for myself a long time ago, and I believe that both the left and the right have overreacted. Both sides are using sections of the bill to stir up their respective bases and it has lead to mass hysteria.

    Section 8 of the bill points out that "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

    Freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment. While it is true that a liberal attorney would challenge that provision, can you honestly say that pastors are the sole target? Politicians make comments -- sometimes a lot stronger than pastors -- on homosexuality. Does this mean that every politician will be sued? Will the next Isaiah Washington be sued? Why would Hollywood -- which is mostly liberal -- support something that would eventually backfire on them? This law, if passed, will likely make it to the Supreme Court, but I can't see the Roberts' Court interpreting the First Amendment so narrowly. And if it is struck down, the Severability Clause in Section 7 would keep the rest of the bill intact.

    If anything, I think the sponsors wanted to dilute the effect of the Fred Phelps of the world. However, they failed to make the scope of the bill narrow enough to prevent potential litigation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pastor sentenced for Oakland abortion protest
    Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Friday, February 20, 200


    (02-19) 17:58 PST OAKLAND --

    A pastor at a Berkeley church was sentenced Thursday to three years' probation and fined $1,000 after becoming the first person convicted under an Oakland ordinance barring protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More Crime News
    Amber Alert issued for girl kidnapped in Yreka 03.02.09
    5 in Oakland hurt in weekend shootings 03.02.09
    Berkeley: Flooded sidewalk a danger to walkers 03.02.09
    The 'Crime of the Century' - Lindy's baby 03.02.09

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Walter Hoye could have faced up to two years in jail after a jury convicted him last month of two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully approaching patients at the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group at Second and Webster streets.

    The case was an emotional one, and pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates jammed the Oakland courtroom for the sentencing hearing. Dozens of people unable to find seats filled the hallway outside.

    Hoye, 52, of Union City appeared ready to accept a jail sentence, telling Judge Stuart Hing of Alameda County Superior Court, "I believe that an unjust law is no law at all."

    Hing said Hoye was by all accounts a "decent person." But illegal conduct is not justifiable when there are legal ways of protesting, the judge said.

    Hing asked if Hoye would abide by an order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from the Oakland clinic, and the pastor said no.

    The judge then imposed the stay-away order anyway, fined Hoye and sentenced him to three years of probation and 30 days in jail. Hoye can serve his time in a sheriff's work detail or by volunteering.

    The "medical safety zone" around abortion clinics was set by the Oakland City Council in 2007. Abortion protesters must stay at least 8 feet from women, staff or escorts entering the buildings.

    The council passed the law in response to complaints of harassment at three abortion clinics in the city. Anti-abortion activists called it an intrusion on their freedom of speech.

    Hoye, executive elder of the Progressive Missionary Baptist Church in south Berkeley, hands out anti-abortion literature outside abortion clinics. He was arrested May 13 at the Oakland clinic, carrying a sign that read, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!"

    As women approached the door, he asked them, "May I talk to you about alternatives to the clinic?"

    "He never laid hands on anyone," Levon Yuille, a nondenominational minister from Michigan who flew in for the sentencing, told the judge. Yuille also heads the National Black Pro-Life Congress.

    Prosecutor Robert Graff said the incident was not a standard free-speech case.

    "It's not that benign. It's not that neutral," Graff said.

    In a statement, Katrina Cantrell, associate executive director of Women's Health Specialists, said, "When anyone restricts access to reproductive health services, every woman affected is a living example of a colonized body."

    Defense attorney Mike Millen said there had been a "conspicuous absence" of patients at the trial who said they felt threatened by Hoye.

    ReplyDelete