Interesting question involving both 1st & 2nd Amendment

[The Annoyed Man]

Maybe I should have used another example?

Let’s try another one ... under Texas law, if your brother is a known Crip, but you are not, are you “gang affiliated”, and how does his membership affect your gun rights?

Also, by what part of due process in the law is an entire gang and all of its members judged to be criminals? I guess what I mean is, who actually makes that decision, and how is due process for the individual members observed in the breach? I mean... criminals or not, they DO have constitutional rights, don’t they?

CAVEAT: I am not personally sympathetic to gangs either, and I’m not so naive as to not understand what they are about. I believe them to be the stain in society’s underwear.

But to be defined by the law as a criminal, does not an individual actor have to actually have committed a crime and then be convicted of it, or at the very least, have to have actually conspired to commit that specific crime? It defies logic to claim that ALL members of a given gang - which may have thousands of members - have individual knowledge of the conspiracy to commit a specific crime. If there are East Side Crips and West Side Crips, and the city is a megalopolis like Houston, it’s entirely reasonable to believe that the guys on the East Side have know way of knowing about the planning and execution of the crime of robbing a liquor store on the West Side. So how are they even conspirators?

Maybe is a chicken/egg thing.......

[The Annoyed Man]

I know several Cossacks, but I didn’t know they were members until after that horrid shootout.

My knee jerk is to despise gangs. On the other hand, the only Cossacks I know wouldn’t trigger the slightest concern in a dark alley. Maybe the local Cossacks “gang” didn’t fit the mold.

My grandfather used to steal horse from the Cossacks...the REAL Cossacks.

Membership in a gang signals intent but we cannot gauge intent, only actions. Too bad. I stay out of dark alleys, especially ones with gang members lurking in them. I suspect that they have bad intentions.

Great answer! And it kind of speaks to what I’m asking here. We can suspect intent, but until we can prove it, on what basis do we suspend the constitutional rights of the person whom we suspect? Example: I STRONGLY SUSPECT that the entire DNC is a conspiracy to overthrow the Consitution of the United States, and by extension, its gov’t. In fact, MANY of its leading lights have committed crimes that we know for a certain fact, but have skated on prosecution and prison time because of politically motivated disinclination to pursue it. (Yeah, I’m looking at YOU, Hillary!) But I can’t just go declare that, because he or she claims membership in the DNC, they have no free exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Until that person is actually accused, tried, and convicted, their rights are not affected. And based on the record of actual crimes committed by both the leadership and the rank and file of the democrat party, it is as much of a gang as the Crips are.

So is it merely a matter of the Crips not having enough friends in DC?

[ScottDLS]

Maybe I should have used another example?

Let’s try another one ... under Texas law, if your brother is a known Crip, but you are not, are you “gang affiliated”, and how does his membership affect your gun rights?

Also, by what part of due process in the law is an entire gang and all of its members judged to be criminals? I guess what I mean is, who actually makes that decision, and how is due process for the individual members observed in the breach? I mean... criminals or not, they DO have constitutional rights, don’t they?

CAVEAT: I am not personally sympathetic to gangs either, and I’m not so naive as to not understand what they are about. I believe them to be the stain in society’s underwear.

But to be defined by the law as a criminal, does not an individual actor have to actually have committed a crime and then be convicted of it, or at the very least, have to have actually conspired to commit that specific crime? It defies logic to claim that ALL members of a given gang - which may have thousands of members - have individual knowledge of the conspiracy to commit a specific crime. If there are East Side Crips and West Side Crips, and the city is a megalopolis like Houston, it’s entirely reasonable to believe that the guys on the East Side have know way of knowing about the planning and execution of the crime of robbing a liquor store on the West Side. So how are they even conspirators?

Maybe is a chicken/egg thing.......

Most succinct statement of the point in the thread!

[SewTexas]

too much of this is getting really, really close to "thought" crime....it's kinda scary. You can't prosecute before the crime y'all

[der Teufel]

too much of this is getting really, really close to "thought" crime....it's kinda scary. You can't prosecute before the crime y'all

Yeah, sorta like New York trying to force handgun buyers to submit their social media passwords to the state police so that someone in law enforcement can decide whether or not you're fit to own a firearm. They want to base it on what they 'THINK' you might do …

To me it's similar to a lot of the 'RED FLAG' laws which circumvent due process. If you exercise your 1st amendment rights (in a manner of which someone in authority disapproves) you then lose your 2nd amendment rights.

I'm sympathetic to the basic idea (reduce gun violence) but not the methods.

[Archery1]

Maybe I should have used another example?

Let’s try another one ... under Texas law, if your brother is a known Crip, but you are not, are you “gang affiliated”, and how does his membership affect your gun rights

It could with unreasonable application, which is something we should not have to fear from any law. Law enforcement keeps formal and informal data on members if they are a gang under consideration for watching and tracking. In some jurisdictions, law enforcement obtains civil restraining orders limiting the movement and activities of gang members. So, think of it as a terrorist organization that our government has enacted civil sanctions against. Get too close, have too much in common, share too much personal life, and yes, you could be flagged for what others do just by association. You too could be in that data base, formal or informal, because that's what is being watched.

[Bitter Clinger]

Play stupid games...

[mojo84]

These nice fellas are thankful for those that are defending their right to own guns.

http://browse.startpage.com/do/show_pic ... &t=default

[The Annoyed Man]

too much of this is getting really, really close to "thought" crime....it's kinda scary. You can't prosecute before the crime y'all

I've largely stayed out of this, because it really is a moot point. There is waaaay too much gang influence for a serious challenge to be mounted.
If I have a 10" AR upper and an operational rifle lower, I have "constructive intent" to possess an unregistered SBR. If I have a file-formed 1/4" bar of 1015 steel with a spring, I have an unregistered fully automatic weapon. Period. End of story. Perhaps I just, "want a cool toy without all that cost..."

Perhaps. I have no reason to own an unregistered SBR/FA, unless I intend to do harm. I have shown willingness to risk mandatory Fed time, and total financial dissolution for my "interest". If I'm really dumb, that's really sad. Most unregistered SBR/FA DIYs are not used innocently.

All government agencies have regs on the books criminalizing "intent," because (oh, my gosh!), it might be better to stop some acts before they happen.

https://chicagoganghistory.com/gang/gangster-disciples/

I am the kind of guy who doesn’t push against limits like that. I currently have two registered SBRs on my trust, for exactly that reason. I am very tempted to build myself a 9mm AR pistol, just to have one, even though I can use one of my SBR lowers. But I never tried assembling my SBRs, even though I had all the parts, until I had the stamps in hand. Ditto the Form 1 suppressors on our trust. Had all the parts, but drilled nothing until the stamps arrived. Had I not already owned registered SBRs and wanted to build a AR pistol, I would have first assembled a pistol lower before ever buying a barrel or barreled upper for it....exactly because I also own carbine-length and longer ARs.

[ScottDLS]

too much of this is getting really, really close to "thought" crime....it's kinda scary. You can't prosecute before the crime y'all

I've largely stayed out of this, because it really is a moot point. There is waaaay too much gang influence for a serious challenge to be mounted.
If I have a 10" AR upper and an operational rifle lower, I have "constructive intent" to possess an unregistered SBR. If I have a file-formed 1/4" bar of 1015 steel with a spring, I have an unregistered fully automatic weapon. Period. End of story. Perhaps I just, "want a cool toy without all that cost..."

Perhaps. I have no reason to own an unregistered SBR/FA, unless I intend to do harm. I have shown willingness to risk mandatory Fed time, and total financial dissolution for my "interest". If I'm really dumb, that's really sad. Most unregistered SBR/FA DIYs are not used innocently.

All government agencies have regs on the books criminalizing "intent," because (oh, my gosh!), it might be better to stop some acts before they happen.

https://chicagoganghistory.com/gang/gangster-disciples/

In these types of laws the intent is only an element of the crime that must be proven TOGETHER with the physical possession of the proscribed item (a drop in auto-sear, if I interpret your second example correctly). If you instead joined a "gang" called the Unregistered Auto Sear Possessors and got a tat of a machine gun shooting a guy in an ATF jacket, you would merely be engaging in a Constitutionally protected (albeit dumb) activity.

[jordanmills]

I know several Cossacks, but I didn’t know they were members until after that horrid shootout.

My knee jerk is to despise gangs. On the other hand, the only Cossacks I know wouldn’t trigger the slightest concern in a dark alley. Maybe the local Cossacks “gang” didn’t fit the mold.

My grandfather used to steal horse from the Cossacks...the REAL Cossacks.

Membership in a gang signals intent but we cannot gauge intent, only actions. Too bad. I stay out of dark alleys, especially ones with gang members lurking in them. I suspect that they have bad intentions.

Great answer! And it kind of speaks to what I’m asking here. We can suspect intent, but until we can prove it, on what basis do we suspend the constitutional rights of the person whom we suspect? Example: I STRONGLY SUSPECT that the entire DNC is a conspiracy to overthrow the Consitution of the United States, and by extension, its gov’t. In fact, MANY of its leading lights have committed crimes that we know for a certain fact, but have skated on prosecution and prison time because of politically motivated disinclination to pursue it. (Yeah, I’m looking at YOU, Hillary!) But I can’t just go declare that, because he or she claims membership in the DNC, they have no free exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Until that person is actually accused, tried, and convicted, their rights are not affected. And based on the record of actual crimes committed by both the leadership and the rank and file of the democrat party, it is as much of a gang as the Crips are.

So is it merely a matter of the Crips not having enough friends in DC?

There's some waffling in my head, but I find myself thinking like you in the end. This is America. This is Texas. We don't imprison people for thought crimes. At least, not in standard.

So in the end, either we agree that this guilt by association is unconstitutional nonsense, or we permanently revoke the rights and freedom of everyone who voted for or worked for Beto O'rourke.

[mojo84]

too much of this is getting really, really close to "thought" crime....it's kinda scary. You can't prosecute before the crime y'all

Yeah, sorta like New York trying to force handgun buyers to submit their social media passwords to the state police so that someone in law enforcement can decide whether or not you're fit to own a firearm. They want to base it on what they 'THINK' you might do …

To me it's similar to a lot of the 'RED FLAG' laws which circumvent due process. If you exercise your 1st amendment rights (in a manner of which someone in authority disapproves) you then lose your 2nd amendment rights.

I'm sympathetic to the basic idea (reduce gun violence) but not the methods.

You would be surprised at the "red flag" training we have to go through as insurance agents. It is especially stressed in the life insurance arena. Mist people have no idea what all goes on with regard to red flag laws and what we as agents are held responsible for.

Also, red flag is huge in the auto dealer world. Most people have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Which 'red flags' are you referring to? The FTC requirement that 'creditors' like auto dealerships and insurance agencies are required to have a policy and protocol in place to identify if I'm really who I say I am before they extend me credit (identity theft)? Or are you saying that auto credit and insurance companies are now actively engaged in determining if I own firearms, and will refuse to insure me/finance a vehicle if I do?

[SewTexas]

Which 'red flags' are you referring to? The FTC requirement that 'creditors' like auto dealerships and insurance agencies are required to have a policy and protocol in place to identify if I'm really who I say I am before they extend me credit (identity theft)? Or are you saying that auto credit and insurance companies are now actively engaged in determining if I own firearms, and will refuse to insure me/finance a vehicle if I do?

thanks....I was trying to figure out where he was going too