TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:36 am

mojo84 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:32 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:26 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:53 pmLawful protest is not a crime even if it's offensive.

Actively being a member of a gang that exists to commit and promote felonious crimes is.

Membership alone should be a disqualifier but I believe each case should be adjudicated.

A possibly minor technical correction but it is not a crime to be a member of a gang. Even under our most liberal law (PC 71.02 Engaging in organized criminal activity) you must take some action, at least in the discussion of planned crimes, to commit a crime. Mere membership in any group is not a crime and our national philosophy has long been that you cannot be guilty by association.

I am willing to discuss making membership a disqualifier but I do not support that concept right now.

Even if it takes committing a criminal act in order to qualify for membership and the gang is specifically established and organized for the purpose of commit crime?

I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. Your conditions are why I would be willing to discuss it but my belief is why I am initially opposed to the idea.

And remember that speeding is a criminal act in Texas.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:26 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:53 pmLawful protest is not a crime even if it's offensive.

Actively being a member of a gang that exists to commit and promote felonious crimes is.

Membership alone should be a disqualifier but I believe each case should be adjudicated.

A possibly minor technical correction but it is not a crime to be a member of a gang. Even under our most liberal law (PC 71.02 Engaging in organized criminal activity) you must take some action, at least in the discussion of planned crimes, to commit a crime. Mere membership in any group is not a crime and our national philosophy has long been that you cannot be guilty by association.

I am willing to discuss making membership a disqualifier but I do not support that concept right now.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:19 pm Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:43 pm

BBYC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:32 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:36 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:09 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:10 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:44 pm It's not just the government that considers dinner of the gangs and motorcycle clubs criminal. They themselves promote the criminal aspect of their groups.

When people put 1% patches or tear drop tats on their bodies that indicate how many people they've killed, they are promoting just how criminal they are. Just because they have not been adjudicated a criminal doesn't mean they are not one.

But should we take away their rights because of this self identification alone? That is the question.

And we are not talking about rights that are granted by the government, like the right to vote. That would be trivial by comparison. We are instead talking about the government restricting a right that people are granted by their creator. If we are OK with this, then should we not also be OK with taking away their right to liberty by virtue of membership in a defined "criminal" organization. After all, such people are more likely than the average citizen to commit crimes, so locking them up proactively would make sense, would it not?

Our Second Amendment rights are not granted by gov't they can only be denied or infringed by gov't.

Licensed carry is in and itself an infringement as it places prior restrictions and qualifications on a right that is specifically protected.

We are in agreement on the fact that the RKBA is not granted by any government. It is fundamental to one's right to life, and therefore is a right that is endowed by one's creator. In the post you quoted, I was distinguishing between rights that are merely granted by government (the right to vote comes to mind as a prime example), and rights that are granted by our creator. We need to be much more careful about allowing the government to infringe on people's fundamental human rights, and the RKBA is in that category, IMHO.

Governments are formed by men to secure their God given rights. That is the sole purpose of government in the first place. No government should infringe on those rights without due process. Indeed, the founders of our country believed that when governments did otherwise and became "destructive of those rights" people have a moral obligation to overthrow that form of government and replace it with another. they also believed that these are "self evident" truths. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to get far afield of these truths in the name of safety and security. That never ends well.

By that reasoning, 46.02 through 46.035 and 46.05 shouldn't exist. I agree in principle.

However, because they do exist, there are Texas laws restricting the RKBA of law abiding surgeons, plumbers and soccer moms. So I can't get worked up over RKBA of people who choose to join groups who commit violent crimes, especially when that affiliation needs to be proven in court to prosecute.

So then where do we draw the line. Do we restrict the right to carry for members of a group whose leaders have called for people to gather as groups in order to harass and intimidate others (aka Democrats)? What about members of a group whose leaders have publicly stated that they would instruct members to use their arrest powers against people who they know are not violating any laws (a number of police forces throughout the state, and also the country)? Do we tell democrats and certain cops that they have lost the right to carry a gun? Just because they belong to a political party or are part of a specific police force?

What about any other groups that are opposed by the folks who happen to be in the political majority at a given time? Should the majority be able to legislate away their rights even though they have not even been accused of a crime?

A similar argument could easily be made for restricting other rights, including the right to vote.

To me, it's simple. Commit a crime and we should use our government to restrict your rights. But membership in any group, alone, should not justify restrictions on your rights.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:10 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:44 pm It's not just the government that considers dinner of the gangs and motorcycle clubs criminal. They themselves promote the criminal aspect of their groups.

When people put 1% patches or tear drop tats on their bodies that indicate how many people they've killed, they are promoting just how criminal they are. Just because they have not been adjudicated a criminal doesn't mean they are not one.

But should we take away their rights because of this self identification alone? That is the question.

And we are not talking about rights that are granted by the government, like the right to vote. That would be trivial by comparison. We are instead talking about the government restricting a right that people are granted by their creator. If we are OK with this, then should we not also be OK with taking away their right to liberty by virtue of membership in a defined "criminal" organization. After all, such people are more likely than the average citizen to commit crimes, so locking them up proactively would make sense, would it not?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun or club; and

(2) is not:

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(B) 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 handgun in 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, unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; 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.

Sec. 71.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter,

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.