TexasCHLforum.com

Freedom and the Constitution just took a little step. SCOTUS just ruled the government could not steal grapes from a grape farmer without just compensation. The govt had fined the farmer for not surrendering his grapes to them.

One small step for man....

ScooterSissy wrote: Much like the backpatch, PGR members have been asked not to respond to protestors (leadership asking us not to exercise free speech), and not to interact with the press. I don't see asking us not to wear a backpatch to be any different. We are there for one specific purpose, and wearing decorations isn't a necessary part.

Really? You don't see a difference between an organization that you joined of your own free will asking you to refrain from something-in this case verbally confronting protestors under threat of kicking you out of the organization-between that and a gang of criminals TELLING your organization, and by extension you and your family, that if you wear a piece of cloth that has the word Texas on it that they will beat or kill you? Which is exactly the punishment meted out at Twin Peaks?

Seriously, you really don't see any difference? Tell me how you feel about armed carjackers?

Sorry. That really is my last word. This discussion is going in circles.

ScooterSissy wrote: then I guess we won't be seeing you on the line. However, the families that I personally have interacted with - the families of those heroes you mentioned - have a different view.

For what it's worth, we also suppress our constitutional rights to respond to the "protestors" when they show up; again for the same reason. Disrupting a funeral would be counter to the mission.

No you won't. Not any more. You might see me there standing among ordinary Americans paying tribute to someone who fought for our freedom. You might see me there reading Scripture, praying, or even saluting. No disrespect, but the PGR is not the only group of people who pay respects at funerals and homecomings.

I have two problems here. First, voluntarily suppressing the "right" to not "respond" to (and I don't even want to know what that means) the "protestors" is hardly the same as voluntarily giving in to a criminal motorcycle gang and its demands. Withholding my rights are significantly different from surrendering them to a criminal element.

And two. Please don't take this personally, I believe you heart is good from everything you've written. BUT IF the media ever learn that the PGR, the "defenders of freedom", go to the Bandidos (who you say run the CoC) and submit to their demands over a patch - which seems to be the underlying reason for the shootout in Waco, they won't paint the PGR as heroes, they will be painted into the same corner as every other OMG. Not that what the media says will be right mind you, but the media does not care about the facts. The Bible says to "avoid every appearance of evil". Associating with evil has risks. Most are contrary to the mission.

I am not saying anyone here approves of the lifestyle. I do say that I have certain priorities in my life that I have set. I have to constantly reevaluate my priorities. I have principles that are inviolate.

I think I've said all I'm going to say.

ScooterSissy wrote: I'm also going to add, the dust-up with the PGRs happened because an MC member approached a PGR rider about his patch. The PGR rider (reportedly) got mouthy, the MC member took it to his club Pres, who took it to the CoC. The PGR rider was undoubtedly simply asserting his rights.

In my opinion, silly fuss over something that had nothing to do with the mission.

With all due respect, honoring a soldier who gave his life defending our freedom, rights, and way of life by surrendering those very rights and freedoms to a criminal gang bent on extortion and the threat of violence, seems to me to make for kind of a strange "mission." I don't think I want any part of that.

ScooterSissy wrote: Huh???? Why should they have not shown up? Isn't that the case you (among a few others) have been making, that they are free to go where they want, and wear what they want? Does the thug accusation take away their rights to go where they want, and wear what they want? Who decides these things, outside of the judges and juries of course?

Scootersissy...I for one was not making that point at all. It disturbs me that a criminal gang should extort good people like you.

My only other point is about how nonexistent the reward for "imitators" to hang around these folks.

As for the Cossacks, in theory the same feeling applies. However, when it comes to two gangs (both seemingly criminal) having a disagreement about one extorting the other, I just really don't care all that much. They can call a cop if it bothers them. Nothing I've said should be interpreted that I care one way or another about either group - or any other group involved in criminal enterprises.

ScooterSissy wrote: I think it's more along the lines of (the 99%, mind you) - "we're imitating them (and they are to a large degree), so if we're playing their game, we should play by their rules."

Better you said it than me. Again, thanks for your honesty.

I'll try another analogy. If someone donned camos that looked very much like military attire, but was slightly different; and then started adding ribbons that were very similar to real military ribbons, but still slightly different; what do you think the chances are that a vet somewhere would tell that person to take them off?

Wonder what the opinion of those on here would be of the poser?

The analogy again breaks down - but you have found a kernel of truth. Posing as a veteran is a real crime that can land you in jail. And yes, people on here probably would not condone anyone posing as one. They also question the sanity of anyone who dresses up like an outlaw biker and sits down to eat a burger with a couple hundred armed gang members. See the connection?

The truth is people (including the rest of the world) paint us by the company we keep and the look we strive for. If I decided to dress up in man-Jammie's, let my beard grow out, sling my AK-47 look alike and walk the streets in company with 20 or 30 other real terrorists, people would probably perceive me to be a terrorist. What would I gain for myself besides a pot full of trouble? Nothing. A lot of real pain for being a make believe terrorist-or am I make believe?

I could dress up like a HAngel, let my beard grow out, let my hair get scraggly, don the leathers and ride my Harley around with some real HAngels. The critical issue is not what the outlaw bikers think of me, but what millions of non-bikers who see the group roaring down the street think of me. Am I one of them? Yes. Why? Because I associate with them. What do I gain from pretending to be a HAngel? Nothing good.

Not criticizing because I wasn't there, but I really doubt there were was any evangelizing by Christians going on when the shooting started. I suspect any "evangelizing" was being done by outlaw bikers just showing up.

Abraham...yours is an excellent question. There comes a point where all the look-alike, dress up pretending causes the focus to shift from eternity to the world. I don't think I want to have to stand before the Lord and explain why I was more interested in the bikes than the souls.

Maybe I'm not saying this clearly enough. No one seems able to answer, so it must be me.

Target1911 wrote:I
Also. I don't believe the Christian group pays anything to anyone or answers to anyone. They were at the meeting for the reason the meeting is held. Motorcycle legislation and safety.

A Christian motorcycle group meeting with a known criminal gang, 100 strong, to discuss legislation and safety? Safety should have been discussed over strip searches at the door. Too thin.

The reason who has what colors is an issue to them is I am sure they don't want to be mistaken for an owtlaw (or any other) club due to colors being too similar.

And for that privilege of seeing what your colors shouldn't look like, you get tossed in jail, get a $1 million bond, and are looking at 15 years or more in a Federal pen? Are you serious? That's why they associate with them?

There are actually several benefit thy clubs that are not required to pay dues. The Christian group.... B.A.C.A. Which means BIKER AGAINST CHILD ABUSE. And yes...they still look like bikers but that doesn't mean they are outlaws.

Let me see if I got this. The criminal gangs give you a break because you do charitable things, so in return you go to a weekend gunfight? What possible reason can you give for a Christian motorcycle club to associate with people who kill one another over a patch?

I will give you the 99% thing that most of them may look like bikers, but are not criminals. However, now for the treat of lunch and a beer with the 1% criminals who decided to kill each other over bragging rights, guess what 99% of the world is branding all of you? Was it worth it?

jmra wrote: Maybe I'm out of touch here, but is it the 99% that are getting extorted or is it part of the 1% extorting other parts of the 1%. I belonged to several groups when I rode (think CMA type groups) and the only thing we paid was minimal dues to the organization for records upkeep and the like.
I guess I was thinking the Texas Rocker and extortion thing was more of a drug turf issue than anything else.

My question is WHY? Why would a Christian organization think for even a second about paying dues to the Bandidos? Can I substitute a name here so I'm absolutely clear? Why would a bunch of Christians pay dues to the HAngels for any reason?

Surely you don't need the Bandidos to keep club records? Isn't that like asking Al Capone to be your club treasurer? I haven't heard any explanation that makes any sense whatsoever. And truthfully, I never expected to hear people on a forum like this acquiesce to such extortion!

Abraham wrote:Yes, the majority of those who ride motorcycles are the law abiding 99% and the 1% are criminals.

The 1% are into pathological role playing though they're mostly middle age to geezer age, they apparently can't stand being themselves. They have to posture like an adolescent. Rather than being cool, they're pathetic.

Wearing colors (can we be anymore juvenile?) and acting out wherever they go is cause for disgust not admiration, though I think a few ordinary misguided citizens seem to idolize these cretins.

I am just having trouble understanding how the 99%, who, prior to buying a motorcycle, would never agree to a criminal extortion plot, somehow feel so threatened as to give in to that demand for compliance - either by agreement or cash - after plunking down their hard-earned money for a motorcycle. With all due respect to the 99%, I just don't get it.

The Annoyed Man wrote: The "dirtbags" I referenced were the Banditos, which the article I quoted described as having a membership of 2300 "worldwide". I never referenced the Cossaks, who, by my reconning came to make peace. Re read my post.

The state of Texas has never granted the Banditos a charter to collect a fee for the privilege of putting a Texas rocker on their colors. Therefore, when they extort a fee backed up by an implied (and apparently quite real) threat of violence for "permission" to wear the rocker, that makes them a true criminal enterprise.......even if they never ran guns or sold drugs or murdered rivals, or any of the other crimes of which they are suspected. They have no LEGAL authority to demand or collect the fee, and they have no LEGAL authority to enforce their claim. That makes them a criminal gang. Period.

Near as I can tell, while the Cossaks may not be sweet little angels, they are willing to live and let live. As a philosophical libertarian, I say good for them. But, until the state grants them exclusive use of the word "Texas" on a rocker and authority to restrict its use, the Banditos club needs to be eradicated......just like any other criminal organization.

TAM...well said. Too many people have given their lives for anyone to live in tyranny from a motorcycle gang, of all things. And here I thought the motorcycle "lifestyle" went out with "Easy Rider."

Scootersissy...I understand what you're saying. Sometimes though remaining silent and going along to get along lands you right in the middle of what Ben Franklin said.

I got to Texas as quick as I could, but I was born in the same state as David Crockett and I've always fancied some of his thoughts, I leave this rule for others when I'm dead - Be always sure you're right — THEN GO AHEAD!

ScooterSissy wrote: But, unless you're going to do a three part patch (top rocker naming the club, bottom rocker naming the location, which can be a city, county, or state, and a club patch) none of that applies. No one is going to ask your GHG-ODM-RC (Grey Haired Grampas One Day a Month Riding Club) to pay any kind of dues, unless you decide to throw on a top and bottom rocker. However, they may tell you that the colors you are using are too close to theirs, and you need to change them. No money involved, they will either tell you to change the patch or the colors, or tell you not to wear it.

Here is where I will have to depart from your statement. I am the only one who will tell myself what to wear or not wear or to whom I will or won't pay "dues" (which, in my view is extortion money). What exactly do you have to gain by obeying their orders?

I'm going to abandon my pointy hat analogy, and do one more realistic. I have no particular desire to wear a pointy white hat, but blue is my favorite color. I would be making a mistake to walk around southside Dallas with a blue warm-up jacket on, if I know that there are gangs in the area that "claim" that color.

This is much the same thing.

Except that you're not talking a neighborhood that can be avoided, you're talking a STATE. Last I looked no motorcycle club owns the state.

I've faced some enemies in my time who all thought it best that I submit to their ideas for how I should continue living my life. I've never been intimidated. I'm probably not alone.

ScooterSissy wrote: If I wanted to wear a white pointy hooded hat, I should be able to wear it anywhere I want, including south Market street in Dallas, but I know that would bring problems. I don't want to, so that's an easy one to avoid.

That said, a few years back, the Oklahoma CoC asked the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR) not to wear the PGR backpatch in Oklahoma, because the predominate colors on the patch were the same as an MC, and the MC objected. The PGR leadership asked us to comply. Most did.

I'm not fond of extortion, but I understand the "rules" they are playing by. I ride with the PGR to to pay respect, and knowingly bringing on trouble doesn't support that mission. I don't wear anything on the back of PGR vest, easy problem to solve.

At the same time, when my wife I ride our $30,000 motorcycle (I'm too cheap for a harley), we do it for for the fun of riding. I see no point in adding "features" to a vest that could easily detract from the fun, and would do little to enhance it. We can wear matching leathers (ours are similar, but not really "matching") without a backpatch.

There are some battles I'm willing to assume for the principle involved. That's not one of them. The rewards are too low, and the risks too great. 8 dead Cossacks can bear witness to that.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't understand why anyone would kowtow to a bunch of bikers. Those "rules" you mention were written by people who think extortion is okay. That isn't about a decision to wear a pointy white hood.

I sure hope the Bandidos never figure out that some bikers legally carry an expensive firearm that could be confiscated with a simple "rule." Ben Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I've lived too many years to accept that tyranny. Sorry. This is not directed at you in any way.

I do thank you for your honesty. I think I understand some of this a bit better.

ScooterSissy wrote: This was an announced CoC meeting. If you and your wife and a few other couples decided you wanted to start wearing a backpatch on leather vests with pretty pink ponies and a top rocker in gold lettering that said "Imagination Riders"; you very well might find yourself at a CoC meeting (just like this one) asking their permission.

Just a question here. If I go out and buy a $40,000 motorcycle for my wife and myself, spend thousands of dollars for matching "biker gear" at the Harley dealer, and wear leather jackets with whatever I want on them, why do I then need to ask permission of anyone?

IMHO there are a lot of hairs being split here. If I wear a Texas rocker on a jacket and someone politely asks me to take it off, I will probably smile and walk away. If they ORDER me to take it off or pay for the privilege of wearing it at the threat of violence, they are going to get a rather different reaction. People who do such things commit extortion. I think going to a meeting where such concepts are even hinted at would be risky. Am I wrong?

mojo84 wrote:Headed to the lake house where we have them. We have about 8 of them. Couple of Harley's, Ktm, 3 BMW touring bikes. I feel no obligation to prove anything to you.

You are absolutely right. You don't owe us any explanation or proof. I dare say that we are all on the same side. As for me, I believe you have the right to live your life as you please. Be safe and have a good time.

The best vacation my wife and I ever took was all around the western states together on our bike. Memories for a lifetime.

I agree. My point is that if you run with people who do that, you shouldn't be surprised if/when things go south.

Edit: I should add that I would be very disappointed to learn that the Patriot Guard and some of the Christian riders groups were there. As I write though something came to mind. A few years back during a Christian retreat, a guy was talking to me about his "Riders" church. I asked him what that was. He had a picture of the auditorium. Instead of a cross at the front, they had an old Harley mounted on the wall.