There's far too much hatred in the world today, and anyone who hates another because of their ethnicity or religion is someone I really want nothing at all to do with.

But I have a problem with the concept of hate crimes.

The idea of charging people with what is ultimately in their hearts at a given point is just troubling, especially since so many people get charged with being some kind of hateful monster these days over nothing.

Yet, Nevada is considering infringing on the rights of people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes.

A bill that would make it illegal for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime from owning or buying a gun for up to 10 years after their conviction is moving forward in the Nevada Legislature.

...

“I am thrilled to see my colleagues in the Senate support Senate Bill 89 and look forward to this legislation passing the Assembly and getting signed into law," said Sen. [Julie] Pazina. "This is a common-sense bill that aims to protect Nevadans by keeping firearms out of the hands of those convicted of hate crimes. This is an important step in ensuring that all Nevadans feel safe in our state, no matter the color of their skin, who they love, or how they worship.”

This isn't making anyone safer.

At most, this will punish young, stupid people who made a mistake but are still being punished for it up to a decade later, despite no felony convictions. Especially as some might plead down to a misdemeanor, even a hate crime misdemeanor, rather than risk felony charges in court, all without knowing their gun rights will be forfeit if they do.

And let's be real here. If these hate crimes are so bad that these folks can't be trusted with their right to keep and bear arms, why aren't these crimes felonies in the first place?

Don't tell me they're not that serious, then try to tell me they're so serious that they should be stripped of their gun rights entirely, even for a limited period of time.

That just doesn't make any sense. Either they're dangerous or they're not. It's just that simple.

The Supreme Court has no issue with stripping the dangerous of their Second Amendment rights, but you have to make the case that they're dangerous. In the Rahimi decision, this was someone who had a domestic violence restraining order against him. There was an indication he was violent, thus dangerous.

A hate crime like racist vandalism, for example--which some people might actually do as a stupid troll versus it representing some heartfelt hatred toward another ethnicity--isn't dangerous, and even if it were, why aren't they charged with felonies in the first place?

Of course, that's not what this is about.

This is about expanding the list of people who can't own guns bit by bit. It started with misdemeanor domestic violence offenders and now it's "hate crimes." We've also seen those who want to do the same with those who have DUIs. Bit by bit, they want to move the window until any offense will strip you of your gun rights, but they want to do it slowly enough we won't be as alarmed as we would if they just jumped at all misdemeanors.

I'm not falling for it.