TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote: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.

True, all.
Just pointing out, charging and indicting is as easy as the prosecutor wants it to be. And those same type humans on the grand Jury will be listening to the testimony in a criminal trial as well.

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... adly-clash

106 cases reviewed, 106 indicted, not for shooting anyone but for " charges of engaging in organized criminal activity"
the remaining 71 arrested will face indictment in the next grand jury for the same charges.

So what was that about what was needed in order to charge or convict in a RICO case?

carlson1 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:... thier privilege to carry a handgun concealed is being restricted. Why not call it what it is, vs what its not?

Actually it is not a privilege it is our right. 2nd Amendment

Thats your opinion, but to the current law, it's not.
I know you know that.
I know you want it to not be that.
And yet, still, that is the current law. Keeping and bearing arms is your RIGHT, carrying one concealed is a privilege in texas,so perhaps while discussing a case here in texas we deal with reality as it is, not who we think it should be?

I understand your opinion, but just because the politicians make a law it does not change my right. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as to tell me handgun, longing, open, or concealed.

The Government can make sin legal, but that change God's commandments.

Im actually in agreement on a personal level
Just trying to keep my part of the discussing as it is in todays reality, not how I wish it was.

carlson1 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:... thier privilege to carry a handgun concealed is being restricted. Why not call it what it is, vs what its not?

Actually it is not a privilege it is our right. 2nd Amendment

Thats your opinion, but to the current law, it's not.
I know you know that.
I know you want it to not be that.
And yet, still, that is the current law. Keeping and bearing arms is your RIGHT, carrying one concealed is a privilege in texas,so perhaps while discussing a case here in texas we deal with reality as it is, not who we think it should be?

ScottDLS wrote: 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.

The gang members rights are not being violated, thier privilege to carry a handgun concealed is being restricted. Why not call it what it is, vs what its not?

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.

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

ScottDLS wrote: I DO think arbitrary denial based on LEO "perception" is.

Portraying oneself as a member of a recognized gang is not "perception" on the LEO's part, it is observation.
The member is not being targeted for someone's perception, they are being observed as a cut wearing member of a known gang, be it a MC or other criminal gang. As they choose to associate with that gang for all it's perceived and real benefits, so to do they reap the disadvantages of that association

That is a statement, not argumentative As I don't have a feel for your position on it.. just noticed your statement and wanted to add MY point of view.

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote: None of which is obviously relative to the OP as he has refused to state what MC he is associated with. Without that piece of info,,, there is no way to say if he is statutorily worng, or being done an injustice.

I don't want to claim that he is wrong or a 1% or anything like that personally. I'm just not going to worry about it because he clearly doesn't want to clear up the issue.

Same here.. Im curious ...well because mistakes, personal opinion (on a LEO's, ADA, Judge) do sometimes rear thier ugly head when it is the law that should reign supreme.. and sometimes a person who is in the worng and unknowingly,,,or knowingly pushing for something that have no rights to.

MONGOOSE wrote:I don't remeber the gang affiliation question on my CHL app. I don't doubt your word that it is there. I do have a problem with a bunch of State or Federal buerocrates defining what an outlaw gang is.

I don't see it in the CHL application
http://txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/ ... HL-78A.pdf
But you do have to sign an afidavitd that states you understand the applicable laws
http://txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-86.pdf

And clearly it is part of the law...as cited above in another post.

So as part OF the application PROCESS you are acknowledging you are not in violation of the law,, or committing perjury (false statement,,or something not sure what law would cover it) by signing that affidavit knowing you are affiliated in a MC that is designated as a gang by law enforcement.

VoiceofReason wrote: So, what you are saying is that if someone is a member of an outlaw biker gang with no record, It is OK for the police to arrest them for no turn signal, search their bike, take their legal firearm, refuse to return it and have their CHL revoked?

Just asking.

Yes, correct, if you are affiliated with a criminal gang, ie street gang, drug gang, or MC designated as a Gang by law enforcement...then the following applies

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01
and
Section 71.01
(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 may not agree, you may not like it, but if the state or feds have designated the group you associate with as a gang you are not able to lawfully carry a concealed handgun. Doing so will likely cause confiscation and criminal proceedings.
None of which is obviously relative to the OP as he has refused to state what MC he is associated with. Without that piece of info,,, there is no way to say if he is statutorily worng, or being done an injustice.