Hells Angels member arrested carrying loaded gun without a license

[terraformer]

Thank god the first case was not argued that way. If it were to come up now, the answer SHOULD (if the justices are even half heartedly trying to be constitutional) be different now than they seem to hint at would have been the case then.

The second case, I am pretty sure Jones is mooted by further case law (if not an appeal of that very ruling). And if not, there is precedent on the horizon in federal court that wipes it out anyhow. See US v. Herrington in the DC court of appeals. http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/07-CF-98_MTD.PDF Note the part about the licensing. They require the city to prove that element of the crime and this is a proper ruling vis a vie Patterson v. NY supra. Ironically Patterson relies on a case called Snyder v. Massachusetts from the early 1900s for the case law that on point makes Jones invalid post mcdonald.

ETA: re jones: Bottom of page 1.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...criminal/pdf/7620-possession-of-a-firearm.pdf

Defendant needs to raise some credible claim, but the state has to prove it to be false so it appears that jones is partially still in effect in that the defense needs to raise the credible claim to force the state to prove it otherwise.

 

[GSG]

The second case, I am pretty sure Jones is mooted by further case law (if not an appeal of that very ruling).

Jones didn't appeal that ruling, or if he did, it never made it to a higher court in Mass.

Defendant needs to raise some credible claim, but the state has to prove it to be false so it appears that jones is partially still in effect in that the defense needs to raise the credible claim to force the state to prove it otherwise.

In Couture and Alvarado the courts held that there's no street level presumption of guilt when someone is carrying a firearm, but in Jones they found that there is when in court. Funny how that works.

 

[Half Cocked]

I just think talking about stuff you don't know about is ill advised for anyone. They do more for people than you think.

You are further proving that you are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I have extensive knowledge of the organization and they are criminals....period!

 

[MassMark]

I guess by some logic if I rob, rape pillage, terrorize, peddle narcotics and commit a murder here and there, it's okay - as long as I do a charity bike run? Wow - the Hell's Angels are really onto something...

On the gun issue however, the upstanding citizen is joining a long and storied list of people who are persecuted for exercising their constitutional right. I read the 2nd Amendment over and over and can;t quite find the part where it restricts...Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think it's interesting that the only apparent charge is the unlicensed possession of a firearm and he was release on bail. He was not subject to pre-trial detention under the state's 'dangerousness' statute. I wonder if another county would have released him on bail?

And I never get tired of GSG and terraformer going back and forth on the law. It's like they're a couple of jailhouse lawyers.

ETA: The article didn't cay anything about him getting a traffic ticket for whatever he was pulled over for.

 

[Rick Roma]

MANY newer Hells Angels have no criminal records or are successful self employed tradesmen and small business owners. These members typically employ other members in their businesses. Check out the number of crew cut "clean" newer members during a run. The club is trying to go "legit" somewhat as the trademarked name and the sales of merchandise actually net them millions throughout the country at this point. I have no love for the HA but I agree that the simple act of carrying a gun should not be a crime. He uses it in the commission of a crime plug in an additional 20 years.

I know an example of this first hand. I know of a guy (friend of a friend of a friend) who owns a very successful body shop. He's in the process of joining the Angels right now. I would have to think that he has a six figure income based on the volume he has in his shop. He's a straight clean cut guy who rides a Harley. Maybe this is the Angel of the future......

 

[Kurtz]

Doesn't the fact that he was carrying an unlicensed gun violate RICO laws?

 

[terraformer]

Doesn't the fact that he was carrying an unlicensed gun violate RICO laws?

Huh? Do you know what RICO is?

 

[MichaelJR]

You are further proving that you are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I have extensive knowledge of the organization and they are criminals....period!

I assure you, I know much more about the club than you ever will. Much more. I'm not saying another word on this topic.

 

[Kurtz]

Huh? Do you know what RICO is?

Yes I do.

 

[Kurtz]

Extortion, prostitution, counterfeiting, drug dealing are just a few of the activities the Angels engage in, and they're all under the RICO law.

 

[ackbob]

I believe an officer has the right to search a person who is being interviewed or detained for both the officers and the other persons safety......

 

[italianppf2]

and go figure, if he was riding in VT and got pulled over he would have done nothing wrong because VT does not have a handgun restriction at all.

I have always wondered how states can be so far off from each other. MA is just plain stupid. I was reading an artice yesterday that stated that MA has the highest crime in the northeast. Why is this? I think we all could take a few stabs at that answer and be pretty darn close and accurate.
I am not defending the Hells Angle rider at all I am just saying that MA's stupid laws dont solve anything. Especially crime.

again not news to any of us.


Rob

+1

 

[italianppf2]

I understand that Hitler was very kind to children.

as long as they were not jewish, black, crippled or had red hair with freckles!

 

[italianppf2]

I am aware of this dhuze. And you right he should know the law. I am just amazed at how some states (the 3 or 4 you mention) can be so far off in their veiws of what is right and wrong.

But I will tell you as a pro gun cop myself..... carrying concealed should be legal in all 50 states and no permit should be required. That is how our 2nd Ammendment (Civil Rights) were supposed to be. If it was that way crime would not be as prominent as it is today. Again this is not news to any of us.

that is one reason why going to San Fran back in Sept to the 2nd Ammendment foundation conference was a benificial trip. They show you exactly how the Government looks at things and plots to disarm us and keep us under finger with foolish, over the top licensing requirements. They show you their techniques and why they are effective. The good news is they also show you how to fight back using their logic. Case in point, when you say, "your infringing on civil rights" they dont know how to respond to that because they have for so many years not thought of the 2nd ammendment as a civil right. Again, I like the 2nd Ammendment foundation because they practice effective, nerve pinching techniques that just may work moving forward.

anyways back to the Hells Angles rider. Yes he should have known the law and had a license but still amazed at how VT feels nothing is required. They must be doing something right. VT crime is nowhere near where MA is. No there is no Boston in VT but there is Montpeillier and Burlington.

Rob

I am all about your rights, especially when it comes to firearms. That said, IMHO, not everyone should get a license to carry without some sort of safety course or training. Especially in the knowledge of the laws of ones state. Do you really want someone who has no clue how to even load a semi auto handgun walking around with it in his or her pants? Not me! Again, IMHO.

 

[drgrant]

I am all about your rights, especially when it comes to firearms. That said, IMHO, not everyone should get a license to carry without some sort of safety course or training. Especially in the knowledge of the laws of ones state. Do you really want someone who has no clue how to even load a semi auto handgun walking around with it in his or her pants? Not me! Again, IMHO.

Got Asbestos?

Sorry, but you can't have rights and have such restrictions or requirements on them. It's a bulls**t concept. The moment you start adding requirements imposed by the government is when you start eroding someone's rights. The mindset you have is exactly what lead to the bulls**t we have in mass right now. A bunch of sheep nipple-heads started going "bweah, there oughta be a laaaaaaawwww" and over time things slid into the septic tank of gun laws we have now in MA.

Most of the US requires no permit whatsoever to own or buy a gun. By some miracle, most non-criminals use firearms responsibly... all without being forced by the government to take "safety courses" and other BS.

I'll also take a WAG that you haven't exactly met a wide variety of license holders in MA. If you did you'd find out what you just told us was BS anyways- having a license, and having been forced to take a course, is zero proof of actual competency. It only demonstrates that someone went through the motions in order to get a license.

To put things in clear... "What I want" is irrelevant in regards to someones creator endowed rights. it's none of my business whether someone else blows their nuts off with a gun or not. They have a right to own that gun, and there's not a damned thing I can do about it... and that's the way it's supposed to be, because that door swings both ways. And it certainly isn't any of my business to make the government use coercive force against that person to enforce behavior that doesn't affect me directly, either.

Yes, in happy fun land where unicorns crap rainbows out of their rectum, it would be great if people always handled firearms
competently. That said, part of REAL freedom entails accepting real risks. I'm willing to accept the risk that someone might not be as responsible with their rights as we are. The "cost" of accepting the risk is always lower than the alternative which is tyranny.

-Mike

 

[JoeT]

I'm just wondering if he and the fireman who shot his girlfriend will be treated to the same 1 year in jail for being unlicensed. . .

 

[italianppf2]

Got Asbestos?

Sorry, but you can't have rights and have such restrictions or requirements on them. It's a bulls**t concept. The moment you start adding requirements imposed by the government is when you start eroding someone's rights. The mindset you have is exactly what lead to the bulls**t we have in mass right now. A bunch of sheep nipple-heads started going "bweah, there oughta be a laaaaaaawwww" and over time things slid into the septic tank of gun laws we have now in MA.

Most of the US requires no permit whatsoever to own or buy a gun. By some miracle, most non-criminals use firearms responsibly... all without being forced by the government to take "safety courses" and other BS.


Like I said IMHO...whatever float your boat buddy...don't assume to know who i've met or how many...


I'll also take a WAG that you haven't exactly met a wide variety of license holders in MA. If you did you'd find out what you just told us was BS anyways- having a license, and having been forced to take a course, is zero proof of actual competency. It only demonstrates that someone went through the motions in order to get a license.

To put things in clear... "What I want" is irrelevant in regards to someones creator endowed rights. it's none of my business whether someone else blows their nuts off with a gun or not. They have a right to own that gun, and there's not a damned thing I can do about it... and that's the way it's supposed to be, because that door swings both ways. And it certainly isn't any of my business to make the government use coercive force against that person to enforce behavior that doesn't affect me directly, either.

Yes, in happy fun land where unicorns crap rainbows out of their rectum, it would be great if people always handled firearms
competently. That said, part of REAL freedom entails accepting real risks. I'm willing to accept the risk that someone might not be as responsible with their rights as we are. The "cost" of accepting the risk is always lower than the alternative which is tyranny.

-Mike

Like I said IMHO...whatever float your boat buddy

 

[Half Cocked]

I assure you, I know much more about the club than you ever will. Much more. I'm not saying another word on this topic.

What Chapter are you with? Are you patched yet or still a prospect?

 

[GSG]

I think it's interesting that the only apparent charge is the unlicensed possession of a firearm and he was release on bail. He was not subject to pre-trial detention under the state's 'dangerousness' statute. I wonder if another county would have released him on bail?

Believe it or not, a lengthy criminal history can be beneficial in obtaining bail. If the guy has a dozen felony convictions but has never defaulted or missed a court date, he's not exactly a flight risk. It's kind of like a credit history demonstrating one's ability to manage large amounts of debt.

And I never get tired of GSG and terraformer going back and forth on the law. It's like they're a couple of jailhouse lawyers.

I ramble on about MGL out of the kindness of my heart, not for cigarettes or toillet tank Pruno. I'm Italian, but I'm not Giacomo DiNorscio.

ETA: The article didn't cay anything about him getting a traffic ticket for whatever he was pulled over for.

Could be an error, or he may not have gotten one.

I know an example of this first hand. I know of a guy (friend of a friend of a friend)

That's not 1st hand. That's not even 2nd hand.

Doesn't the fact that he was carrying an unlicensed gun violate RICO laws?

No. I don't think you fully understand RICO.

Especially in the knowledge of the laws of ones state.

If you know all of the Mass. gunlaws, you should be teaching a class, because you're the only person on the planet who does. If you know 25% of them you're off to a good start.

Got Asbestos?

I was thinking more along the lines of a fishing vessel and Zippos.

 

[Kurtz]

I thought RICO simply meant that stiffer penalties will be enforced on anyone belonging to a corrupt organization? Meaning he shouldn't be let go on bail, and should get more jail time than the average joe for having a handgun without a license.

 

[buketduder]

Are some people really saying because you are in a "Motorcycle Club" you can't/should not be allowed own/carry guns? On many occasions I have seen Outlaws/HA and some others purchasing firearms at gun stores in CT, with their vests on...and obviously having CT Pistol Permits...

 

[Emoto]

Are some people really saying because you are in a "Motorcycle Club" you can't/should not be allowed own/carry guns? On many occasions I have seen Outlaws/HA and some others purchasing firearms at gun stores in CT, with their vests on...and obviously having CT Pistol Permits...

Are you saying that you cannot see the difference between a motorcycle club and a criminal enterprise?

 

[TomH]

Are you saying that you cannot see the difference between a motorcycle club and a criminal enterprise?

The 2nd Amendment says shall not be infringed, not "shall not be infringed unless you are part of a suspected criminal enterprise". If they are criminals, jail them on criminal charges. They aren't in jail because they have nothing on them, or they were paroled early. It has nothing to do with one's right to bear arms.

 

[Emoto]

The 2nd Amendment says shall not be infringed, not "shall not be infringed unless you are part of a suspected criminal enterprise". If they are criminals, jail them on criminal charges. They aren't in jail because they have nothing on them, or they were paroled early. It has nothing to do with one's right to bear arms.

Back up the truck. Did I say it did? Did I take a position on that? I did not. Look at my post in the context of what I was responding to; I was questioning the characterization of the HA as merely a motorcycle club.

 

[terraformer]

I thought RICO simply meant that stiffer penalties will be enforced on anyone belonging to a corrupt organization? Meaning he shouldn't be let go on bail, and should get more jail time than the average joe for having a handgun without a license.

You are taking "organization" too literally. That is a word they used so their acronym would work. Yes, the douchebags in congress actually try hard to name these bills in ways that their acronyms sound cool.

Organizations can't suffer criminal penalties in the same ways that a person can. See corporate personhood, corporate lability, etc. In short, if a corporation commits criminal acts, can it be put in jail? No but it can be fined, and additionally the officers in the corporation can be jailed for individual actions so one needs to identify individual actors as well.

So the word organization here means a collection of people working in concert and they don't have to be knowingly working in concert in all cases nor do they need to tied to one another by an official organization structure. So to tie the biker to any sort of RICO charge related to the gun you need to tie his specific behavior of carrying the gun to element(s) of the RICO statute and then tie those two things to another individual in the HA. The prosecutor can't just walk in and say these two HA members both engaged in criminal activity covered by RICO and say that because they were both HA members the connection is made. They can use that as circumstantial evidence but they need more to make the connection. Although they don't have to knowingly coordinate with all elements of the "organization" they need to have some sort of knowledge they ware a part of something verboten.

This is why RICO is not relevant. You have no evidence this guy engages in any of the covered crimes with any other person. He may have simply been armed as a means of self defense.

 

[Kurtz]

You are taking "organization" too literally. That is a word they used so their acronym would work. Yes, the douchebags in congress actually try hard to name these bills in ways that their acronyms sound cool.

Organizations can't suffer criminal penalties in the same ways that a person can. See corporate personhood, corporate lability, etc. In short, if a corporation commits criminal acts, can it be put in jail? No but it can be fined, and additionally the officers in the corporation can be jailed for individual actions so one needs to identify individual actors as well.

So the word organization here means a collection of people working in concert and they don't have to be knowingly working in concert in all cases nor do they need to tied to one another by an official organization structure. So to tie the biker to any sort of RICO charge related to the gun you need to tie his specific behavior of carrying the gun to element(s) of the RICO statute and then tie those two things to another individual in the HA. The prosecutor can't just walk in and say these two HA members both engaged in criminal activity covered by RICO and say that because they were both HA members the connection is made. They can use that as circumstantial evidence but they need more to make the connection. Although they don't have to knowingly coordinate with all elements of the "organization" they need to have some sort of knowledge they ware a part of something verboten.

This is why RICO is not relevant. You have no evidence this guy engages in any of the covered crimes with any other person. He may have simply been armed as a means of self defense.

They still have to be tried in court, but if found guilty, being a member of a OMG as defined by the justice dept, they would/should get a stiffer sentence. (according to the govt)

 

[terraformer]

They still have to be tried in court, but if found guilty, being a member of a OMG as defined by the justice dept, they would/should get a stiffer sentence. (according to the govt)

You may well be right. I don't know anything about sentencing enhancements that exist. There are too many to track and frankly they are fraudulent and reinforce a separate but equal status of various classes of individuals.

 

[Kurtz]

If I heard correctly a candidate for the Hells Angels has to commit a felony to get accepted into the club? So just because they haven't got caught/been convicted they can buy a gun legally. That clears it all up, they're a bunch of swell guys that own rocket launchers and machine guns that occasionally have fire fights with other gangs

 

[TomH]

Back up the truck. Did I say it did? Did I take a position on that? I did not. Look at my post in the context of what I was responding to; I was questioning the characterization of the HA as merely a motorcycle club.

It is a motorcycle club. If all the members are criminals, then why aren't they all in jail? If you can't prove it, it's called "alleged" criminal activity.