Police confiscated my weapon

[E.Marquez]

... 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?

[carlson1]

... 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.

[E.Marquez]

... 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]

... 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.

I completely understand. It is hard to keep them apart.

[cprems]

The OP seems to have gone radio silent. I hope that he will come back and let us know the outcome. It's an interesting case for sure.

[E.Marquez]

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?

[ScottDLS]

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]

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.

[jb2012]

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.

Or for defunding a drunk district attorney