LTC and "criminal street gang"

[WildRose]

Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

They should.

[E.Marquez]

Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

If you go by what they SAY in public, then no.
If you go by what they DO, then yes.

[mojo84]

It's apparent there is quite a bit of ignorance regarding what it takes to be a member of criminal street gang and outlaw motorcycle "club".

[srothstein]

Lawful 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.

[mojo84]

Lawful 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?

[srothstein]

Lawful 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.

[Flightmare]

Lawful 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?

If a person is arrested and found guilty of committing a crime that would disqualify them from an LTC or firearms possession, that would be sufficient. However I do not agree with membership in nor association with a person/group to be a crime, nor a disqualifier. Just my opinion. As srothstein said above, innocent until proven guilty.

[mojo84]

Lawful 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.

I hear you. I have my opinion but also appreciate the innocent until proven guilty standard. I just think the nature of the organization and its membership qualificationa changes things.

At this point I just find it hard to reconcile that I follow the law in order to remain eligible to have an LTC and disagree with the concept of an admitted criminal also qualifying for one just because he hasn't been caught in the act or found guilty in a court. Also, it takes a more severe criminal act than speeding in order to satisfy gang membership initiation requirements.

I'm sure if I were inclined to join such a criminal organization and had not been caught committing crimes and wanted an LTC, I would have a different opinion.

Here's another way to look at it. Why should admitted ullefal drug use or addiction be a disqualifier of one hasn't been caught or proven guilty in a court for it?

[bbhack]

Gang membership does "adjust" your 4th (and maybe 5th) amendment rights!

[Rubicon]

Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

They should.

Sec. 71.01. DEFINITIONS.
(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.

three or more persons? many more ✓
having a common identifying sign or symbol? they even have a flag ✓
regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities? disturbing the peace, vandalism, assault, riot ✓

[WildRose]

Lawful 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.

True and there's the rub. Simply by associating as a member everyone is a participant but it must first be proven in court that they have actually done something that is illegal.

I can see both sides, how allowing the state to simply declare any group a "criminal street gang" but then that's where I would expect the legislature to craft a law spelling out in detail exactly what does and doesn't qualify.

Unfortunately the legislature lets us down time and again when it comes to things like that so I don't know what the answer is.

If judges could keep their own politics and partisanship out of the courtroom I'd have a lot more trust in allowing them broad leeway in such decisions but again, history shows us that just really isn't possible.

[E.Marquez]

True and there's the rub. Simply by associating as a member everyone is a participant but it must first be proven in court that they have actually done something that is illegal.

I think (barely but I try)aiding and abetting a criminal is a crime in TX? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.htm
If so would not membership and association (actual physical proximity, interaction co activities) with those gang members who are criminals meet the intent of that law for other members?

[WildRose]

True and there's the rub. Simply by associating as a member everyone is a participant but it must first be proven in court that they have actually done something that is illegal.

I think (barely but I try)aiding and abetting a criminal is a crime in TX? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.htm
If so would not membership and association (actual physical proximity, interaction co activities) with those gang members who are criminals meet the intent of that law for other members?

I think you'd have a real hard time making the case that simply by associating with them a person is aiding and abetting them. To prove the latter I think you'd have to show a direct way in which the person is actively harboring or otherwise assisting in the planning and/or execution of a crime or crimes.

[BBYC]

Well, since membership is not illegal per se, but merely denies them a "privilege" that was denied to soccer moms as recently as a dozen years ago, I have bigger fish to fry. If gang members want to petition the government to redress their grievance, they have that right.

[Soccerdad1995]

Well, since membership is not illegal per se, but merely denies them a "privilege" that was denied to soccer moms as recently as a dozen years ago, I have bigger fish to fry. If gang members want to petition the government to redress their grievance, they have that right.

Personally, I don't have any "bigger fish" than the protection of our fundamental human freedoms. I don't much like Democrats, but I don't want to see their rights restricted. The same goes for any other group of people that have not committed any crimes.

And I'm assuming you are being facetious by referring to the RKBA as a "privilege". If not, then we are so far apart on the underlying issue here that we probably will never see eye to eye.