TexasCHLforum.com

This is not a federal RICO case, and an indictment is not a conviction. Remember in Texas you can indict a sitting governor for vetoing a bill.

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: We all know that Sodomy, Abortion, and Gay Marriage are constitutionally guaranteed (un)natural rights, so I don't think it's a stretch to extend that to CWW (carrying while "wearing" [colors].

Or a person could choose not to be a member of a gang, that would work as well
We all make choices, if someone chooses to be a member of a street gang (which several MC's are so designated), they lose the option to carry a concealed weapon in Texas.
This is not new, it's not in question and I doubt very much such a restricted person is going to get much help from the legal system to lift the restriction.

No, not their option to carry a handgun, just their option to use a Texas LTC to do it. That's why I have no less than 4 licenses that are recognized by Texas in addition to my Texas one. Never know when they might try to take away my LTC for being a Juggalo (fan of hip hop band Insane Clown Posse). Especially if I'm wearing my "colors" (clown makeup).

mojo84 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"?

In some cases it is.. mere association with a group tagged in a RICO case, makes you chargeable and case history shows, convicted at times.

But I think I know you meant that in a broader term..... and you're right,,, that would not stand.. The next "Powers to be" could then write a law saying membership in a group that rides Motorcycles is illegal. Or Owns guns, or

Much more than "mere association" is required for a conviction, otherwise feds could have "RICOed" every patched member and ended all the gangs. You have to be proven to have been involved in directing the "organization". RICO is generally used against the leaders, not the members.

If a MC member doesn't engage in any illegal activity, nor direct such activity, I'm hard pressed to see how denying him a right is constitutional.

Do you plan to file your suit so this can be ajudicated? Do you know of a judicial ruling on this that addresses this issue?

Nope. If I were OP I would keep moving forward with my lawyer and also get a Florida CWP, which I would then hand over with a smile the next time I got arrested for not doing something illegal.

We all know that Sodomy, Abortion, and Gay Marriage are constitutionally guaranteed (un)natural rights, so I don't think it's a stretch to extend that to CWW (carrying while "wearing" [colors].

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"?

In some cases it is.. mere association with a group tagged in a RICO case, makes you chargeable and case history shows, convicted at times.

But I think I know you meant that in a broader term..... and you're right,,, that would not stand.. The next "Powers to be" could then write a law saying membership in a group that rides Motorcycles is illegal. Or Owns guns, or

Much more than "mere association" is required for a conviction, otherwise feds could have "RICOed" every patched member and ended all the gangs. You have to be proven to have been involved in directing the "organization". RICO is generally used against the leaders, not the members.

If a MC member doesn't engage in any illegal activity, nor direct such activity, I'm hard pressed to see how denying him a right is constitutional.

This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"? That way we could lock 'em all up for wearing the colors. My suspicion is, because that would be unconstitutional on it's face. Otherwise it already would be the law.

This is why I support Constitutional carry. We shouldn't have to beg the State for rights that we already possess.

I suspect lots of people think they're pretty cool 'cause they have met the state mandated requirements and get to carry, unlike the rest of the unwashed masses. OK... Even I collect out of state licenses with states that already have reciprocity, just 'cause I think they're interesting. I used to have multiple DL's before it became illegal to do so.

I don't think licensing for carry is necessarily unconstitutional, but I DO think arbitrary denial based on LEO "perception" is. Our "betters" in government are fond of pointing out that DRIVING is a privilege not a right...a point that I am not willing to concede, but why not deny motorcycle licenses to "Outlaw" MC members? There's no amendment relating to driving.

Finally for OP, my suggestion is to get a Florida CWP, in case you lose the battle to keep your Texas LTC. Just for the next time you get pulled over for NOT FAILING to signal...

mojo84 wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:You guys like to pick and choose the rights given to us all. Just who "you" think deserves them. Change the constitution then

So, you would have no problem with one of these dudes showing up to your house to take your daughter on a date? You think they should be allowed to obtain a CHL?

Is that "Insane Clown Posse" ?

The Annoyed Man wrote:
...

Sec. 71.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter,

• (a) "Combination" means three or more persons who collaborate in carrying on criminal activities, although:
  • (1) participants may not know each other's identity;
    (2) membership in the combination may change from time to time; and
    (3) participants may stand in a wholesaler-retailer or other arm's-length relationship in illicit distribution operations.
  (b) "Conspires to commit" means that a person agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense and that person and one or more of them perform an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. An agreement constituting conspiring to commit may be inferred from the acts of the parties.
  (c) "Profits" means property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from an offense listed in Section 71.02.
  (d) "Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

You don't have to actually commit the crimes. You just need to be a member of an identifiable group of people who do.

I'm not saying one way or the other if that is a good or bad thing. I'm just reporting what the law says.

Seems kind of Constitutionally dubious to me. That whole free association thing and stuff. But since we're regularly told CHL is a "privilege" like a DL, I have an idea... How about no DL's for Gang Members?

What up, Juggalos?

jimlongley wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Some of the nicest folks I have I have encountered have been bikers. Now sailors, they are just a bunch of Sperry wearing drunks.

To the OP, sounds like you are on the right track. Whether based on what you are riding, your skin color, your age, the fact that you are an out of towner in a small town, or any other factors, being discriminated against is never fun.

Easy with that stuff, I am a sailor, and am at my 31st ship's reunion, so I could put together a pretty good (if somewhat old, at going on 70 I am one of the youngest) gang. But not one of us wear Sperry.

Maybe not Sperry wearing, but drunks...in my experience that covers 80% of us too.

Former LTJG USN