Supreme Court rules 'crime of violence' law is unconstitutionally vague

UPI ^ | june 24, 2019

[VeniVidiVici]

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that the Loony Left goes overboard like they do against conservative SC judges just to make them feel guilty and VOTE liberal?

[BobL]

I can’t say that I like that one, but the two really don’t go together. A hate crime implies that one is able to look into the mind of the (white) perp and figure out what he was thinking, while a gun crime involves shiny, cold, steel.

I think it’s possible for the courts to throw out the hate crime laws, while keeping the gun crime laws.

[Gene Eric]

>> “In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all,” Gorsuch wrote.

Then repeal all “Hate Crime” law.

[Spktyr]

Many states (California is one of the worst offenders) tend to release violent felons on ‘community supervision’ or ‘probation’ long before their nominal sentence ends. Then they’re ‘surprised’ when said felons commit more crimes while on this ‘community supervision’.

[Revel]

let get rid of hate crimes and laws that give one member of society more importance than another.

[david1292]

A lot of that is because the prisons are overcrowded. A few years ago they were so overcrowded in California that they had to let a whole bunch of offenders out early.

Easy to say to “build more.” But prisons are very expensive, especially in California where the guards have a powerful union and they make over $100k a year. So to staff a prison costs a fortune.

[csn vinnie]

You could just make use of a gun to commit any crime an enhanced punishment. Use a gun to pass bad checks? Use a gun commit Medicaid fraud? Hard to imagine, but if you do, your sentence can be increased.

[Spktyr]

They were doing the same thing in the 1980s and 1990s when the prisons were *not* overcrowded.

[buffaloguy]

If I were a lawyer I would be looking for a hate crime to appeal.

[Roccus]

I’m thinking that that is coming....using this decision as precedent.

[Batman11]

PFL

[OldGoatCPO]

I actually agree with this ruling. I do so because I know for a fact some police departments abused this law by claiming a gun was present. They get the victim to say they “saw a gun” so special circumstances enters into the sentencing. Cop say the robbers ditched the weapon, but they have testimony from a witness.

In the case I am sadly intimately aware of the robber choose trial. With the special circumstances the robber would have received in effect a life sentence. So he had nothing to lose. The victim at trial told the truth and told the judge there were no weapons involved just a threat, from two nearly incapacitated fools who were of no real threat to him. He told the judge the police told him to say there was a weapon.

[i_robot73]

So, you AGREE w/ the tiered Citizenry? One of the ‘feed the gators hoping to be the last’ brigade. *SMH*

[plain talk]

I was just pointing out the correct definition of felon and correcting the mistake in the post. Are you a felon?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Using a gun isn’t self-evident of an act of violence?

It's a badly-worded statute. It says using a gun to commit any federal crime adds 2 years to your sentence, unless it's a "crime of violence," in which case it adds 5 years.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the mention...