LTC and "criminal street gang"

[Soccerdad1995]

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?

[mojo84]

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?

No sense in going overboard or to the extreme. People make choices and those choices have consequences. If one chooses to be a part of a criminal gang it isn't unreasonable for them to forfeit their right to carry a gun. That is their choice. Also, we aren't talking about Rotary, country our chess clubs.

Losing the right to carry a gun is not losing the right to defend one's self.

[WildRose]

Here is another perspectice on the subject:

http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.c ... rm-bikers/

Reminds me of the biker gang shootout at the BBQ joint near WACO.

As I recall nearly all of the cases were thrown out.

[WildRose]

I have no love for gang members. But it just seems fundamentally anti-American for the government to take away peoples' God given rights because they are members of a group. If you have committed a crime, then yes it is appropriate to punish you by taking away your pursuit of Happiness, your Liberty, and maybe even your Life. But mere membership in a group that is considered by the government to be "criminal"? I'd say no.

This is a very dangerous path, IMHO.

I'd generally agree but in this case the "groups" are groups engaged in and promoting criminal activity.

Some studies show that as much as 80% of all violent crime is associated with drugs and gangs which requires some exceptional measures to even attempt to control.

When you have multiple gang members engaged in committing a specific crime or series of crimes it can be very difficult sometimes to identify exactly which individuals were present and participating in any given crime.

I don't know what the answer is but it's easy to identify the problem and why LEO's and Prosecutors are more than willing to push the limits in dealing with them.

[WildRose]

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.

Admitted vs Convicted criminals, both should be denied eligibility. Each of those individuals though probably should be dragged before a judge and formally rendered ineligible.

[WildRose]

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[BBYC]

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

Refer to the definition of criminal street gang. That's where the line is drawn.

[ELB]

A group that forms for the purpose of committing crimes? Not speaking out, but actual crimes? No problem restricting their freedom, it's certainly not a first or second amendment issue.

And if the Democratic Party wants to morph into a criminal gang, by all means, lock them up too.


A Criminal Court of Appeals opinions that consider criminal street gangs and the law:
https://www.tdcaa.com/casesummaries/june-8-2018

[Flightmare]

Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

[mojo84]

Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

Does it fit the definition?

[bbhack]

Would Antifa qualify as a criminal street gang?

That's more self-identification than an actual gang. Gangs have strict hierarchies. If there are actual Antifa leaders, I know the feds are all over them.

[WildRose]

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.

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.