TexasCHLforum.com

Mine was 2010. May have been there.

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.
So O'Bama and his cohorts could be considered a "Criminal street gang"? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Not sure if we should be passing judgement just because the feds declare a group a 'gang'....

http://www.wired.com/2011/10/fbi-gang-i ... own-posse/

What up, Juggalos?

VoiceofReason wrote:

Abraham wrote:Stew,

If you want to be believed and accepted here, you'll have to work a bit harder at convincing the members you're being mistreated by LE by being more forthcoming.

If not interested in being accepted here, O.K., but the perception at this point is you are quite possibly a member of an outlaw biker gang and as such few here will provide you much sympathy or support.

If you're not part of an outlaw MC, why not provide enough information to exonerate yourself in the eyes of the members here?

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.

According to the law, yes. If a person claims and advertises to be part of a gang or OMC and is carrying a firearm, that firearm is not legal as you suggest. That's the law.

I'm not passing judgement on the OP. I am refusing to buy in to his story based on the sketchy details he is sharing while claiming he is a victim of the cops. Seems to me if he wants to claim being a victim of police harrassment or whatever , he should be more forthcoming. He appears to be posting bits and pieces along with a hefty dose innuendo and wants us to sympathize with him.

Fogginess abounds. The Cossacks, in the past, have not been listed by the DPS as an outlaw gang. I've discovered that two people I've done business with are Cossacks, and I wouldn't hesitate to do business with them again. I don't know why they are Cossacks. I know they are honest and lawful.

That's not an endorsement of all Cossacks, of course. Those two, and one other that I've recently learned is a Cossack, are honorable. My advice to them would be to get the heck away from the Cossacks, but I'm sure they've already heard that.

As Yogi Berra might have said, you can't judge a book by how many wheels under his butt.

It's also a mystery to me how law enforcement stood aside and let the Bandidos lay claim to the name Texas and profit by licensing it. Really, something should have been done. I was born here, I should have the right to plaster Texas on my back if I want.

Not all bad people are bad all the time. Not all good people are good all the time.


Sometimes, we are treated according to the company we keep. We make judgments about people all the time. If one invites a negative impression one shouldn't cry about someone having that impression about them.

VoiceofReason wrote:

Abraham wrote:Stew,

If you want to be believed and accepted here, you'll have to work a bit harder at convincing the members you're being mistreated by LE by being more forthcoming.

If not interested in being accepted here, O.K., but the perception at this point is you are quite possibly a member of an outlaw biker gang and as such few here will provide you much sympathy or support.

If you're not part of an outlaw MC, why not provide enough information to exonerate yourself in the eyes of the members here?

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.

Same as if a person is a member of the Crips or Bloods. It's a known gang affiliation with a known criminal enterprise, which is a disqualifier for CHL in Texas......even if YOU are not committing any of the gang's crimes.

TPC § 46.02

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.

• (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
  • (1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
    (2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
  (a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgunin a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
  
  • (1) the handgun is in plain view; or
    (2) the person is:
    • (A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
      (B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
      (C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

TPC § 71.01

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.

Why should anyone give a hoot about someone's impression of them? That is a you problem. Just as I could care less about of an anti gunners impression of me because I hang out with other CHLrs or go to the range and shoot with other gun owners.

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?

MONGOOSE wrote:Why should anyone give a hoot about someone's impression of them? That is a you problem. Just as I could care less about of an anti gunners impression of me because I hang out with other CHLrs or go to the range and shoot with other gun owners.

ScottDLS wrote: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?

Last line of my previous post:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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.

nightmare69 wrote:The hells angels, Cossacks, and Bandido's all classify themselves as a MC and not a gang but we all know the truth. So what club or gang do you affiliate with?

Also the Blue Knights are the only LEO club I know of.

Actually the Cossacks are a MC but not a 1% club. They are not on any gang or outlaw club list I know of. They were however flirting with the HA's according to some reports, but they have never been accused of using the club to make money illegally.

Without regard to the constitution and any other excuse, your mother was right.

"You are known by the company you keep."

My answer to the "Do you mind I search your car/truck/trunk/etc?" has always been..."Yes, I do mind and no you cannot." If that gets me in a little hot water so be it. I however don't dress like a gang member. Sorry if that offends.

People who like to appear dangerous are typically dangerous. Of course, not always, but usually.

Stereotypes exist for a reason...