Texas Jury decides no Bandidos can possess firearms

[FrugalFannie]

http://www.motorcycleprofilingproje...-illegal-for-any-bandido-to-possess-a-weapon/

"A jury in El Paso, Texas decided Friday that it is illegal for a member of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club to possess a weapon in the state. DT, a member of the BMC in El Paso, was arrested October 16th, 2017 on his way to work for Unlawful Carrying Of A Weapon. Although it was conceded by all sides that DT had no felony record and was not a convicted criminal, the prosecution argued, and the jury agreed, that merely being a member of the Bandidos was enough to consider an individual a gang member prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights."

So if a jury doesn't like your "affiliation" with a group, they can strip you of your rights.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

That's absolutely absurd.

 

[GM-GUY]

What’s next? The NRA is a terrorist organization after all......

HAMAS & ISIS - you’re good.

 

[Beretta92FS]

Next up, Maura will use this as precedence and declare that “merely being a green member of NES is enough to consider that individual prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”

 

[Jason Flare]

I’ve told the Polish Falcons that they had better see this coming.

 

[greencobra]

Next up, Maura will use this as precedence and declare that “merely being a green member of NES is enough to consider that individual prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”

no, we just have to convince her we press the trigger, never pull it.

 

[connor]

You can't even talk about this elsewhere because people immediately hop to "You're saying dangerous gang members are allowed to walk around with guns to commit crimes and kill people!"

Well, yes. I'll take my freedom if it means some scumbag gets it too. Until he commits a crime with the gun, he's a law abiding citizen. Sorry.
Until you rape someone, you're just a dude with a dick, even if drink every night with cosby, sandusky, jared fogle, and wienstien.

 

[AHM]

PENAL CODE

TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS

CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
...
(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:
...
(2) the person is:
...
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
=====
TITLE 11. ORGANIZED CRIME

CHAPTER 71. ORGANIZED CRIME

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.
=====
ETA: The thread title [paraphrased from the linked article] is Very Fake News.

All the jury decided was that no Bandidos can carry handguns
while driving, or as passengers in their own cars.

That law doesn't prohibit criminal street gang members
from carrying rifles or shotguns at any time;
or carrying handguns when a passenger in someone else's car, or not in a car;
or transporting handguns stored out of their control while driving, or in their own car.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Next up, Maura will use this as precedence and declare that “merely being a green member of NES is enough to consider that individual prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”

Maura has decided that all subjects of MA have no 2A rights. Or have you been sleeping?

 

[weekendracer]

http://www.motorcycleprofilingproje...-illegal-for-any-bandido-to-possess-a-weapon/

"A jury in El Paso, Texas decided Friday that it is illegal for a member of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club to possess a weapon in the state. DT, a member of the BMC in El Paso, was arrested October 16th, 2017 on his way to work for Unlawful Carrying Of A Weapon. Although it was conceded by all sides that DT had no felony record and was not a convicted criminal, the prosecution argued, and the jury agreed, that merely being a member of the Bandidos was enough to consider an individual a gang member prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights."

So if a jury doesn't like your "affiliation" with a group, they can strip you of your rights.

OMGs are criminal organizations. But, this is asinine. A perfect example of good intentions paving the road to hell.

 

[Bob P]

Texas is the mirror MA. Picture MA if conservatives were in charge. Remember, most gun control laws started as a way to prevent ‘criminal elements’ (ie blacks in many cases) from getting guns and were espoused by plenty of solid conservative folk.

 

[Tallen]

I suppose that means a jury could do the same for police too.

 

[Dennis in MA]

PENAL CODE

TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS

CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
...
(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:
...
(2) the person is:
...
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
=====
TITLE 11. ORGANIZED CRIME

CHAPTER 71. ORGANIZED CRIME

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.
=====
ETA: The thread title [paraphrased from the linked article] is Very Fake News.

All the jury decided was that no Bandidos can carry handguns
while driving, or as passengers in their own cars.

That law doesn't prohibit criminal street gang members
from carrying rifles or shotguns at any time;
or carrying handguns when a passenger in someone else's car, or not in a car;
or transporting handguns stored out of their control while driving, or in their own car.

So much for living in a "free" state.

 

[Zappa]

That law doesn't prohibit criminal street gang members
from carrying rifles or shotguns at any time;
or carrying handguns when a passenger in someone else's car, or not in a car;
or transporting handguns stored out of their control while driving, or in their own car.

So it's OK if they're riding as a passenger as long as they don't own the car ???

 

[Radtekk]

You can't even talk about this elsewhere because people immediately hop to "You're saying dangerous gang members are allowed to walk around with guns to commit crimes and kill people!"

Well, yes. I'll take my freedom if it means some scumbag gets it too. Until he commits a crime with the gun, he's a law abiding citizen. Sorry.
Until you rape someone, you're just a dude with a dick, even if drink every night with cosby, sandusky, jared fogle, and wienstien.

The principle of "Better that 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be imprisoned" seems to be losing ground. And the First Amendment promises freedom of association. When did that get edited out? Also, reading the ENTIRE artcle, one learns that the defendant lost ALL rights to carry, NOT just "while operating."

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Since when can a jury change written law? Jack.

 

[CLW42]

But I thought Texas = Freedom

 

[connor]

The principle of "Better that 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be imprisoned" seems to be losing ground. And the First Amendment promises freedom of association. When did that get edited out? Also, reading the ENTIRE artcle, one learns that the defendant lost ALL rights to carry, NOT just "while operating."

Knee jerk reaction without logic.
I'm not a fan of gangs but I can see the larger issue. It seems nice in theory to ban a bunch of guys, who, let's face it, more than likely are doing illegal shit and haven't gotten caught. Most of them are most likely up to no good. You don't hang around with bad people long without doing bad stuff yourself. You either get roped into it or you leave.
But it's dangerous to start criminalizing affiliations. Guilt by association is decidedly not good.

 

[Radtekk]

Knee jerk reaction without logic.
I'm not a fan of gangs but I can see the larger issue. It seems nice in theory to ban a bunch of guys, who, let's face it, more than likely are doing illegal shit and haven't gotten caught. Most of them are most likely up to no good. You don't hang around with bad people long without doing bad stuff yourself. You either get roped into it or you leave.
But it's dangerous to start criminalizing affiliations. Guilt by association is decidedly not good.

Based on Maura's 7/20 edict, one could argue that NES is "a loosely organized group wherein some members are actively committing felonious acts by possession of illegal firearms, therefor ALL members are guilty 'by association' and therefor felons."

Your statement bolded above sounds disturbingly similar to a cop's argument that "He's in the wrong place at the wrong time, so even if he's not guilty of 'x' he must be guilty of something."

Thankfully, your last two sentences clarify for me that that is NOT your premise.

 

[Tallen]

Since when can a jury change written law? Jack.

Jury nullification, although historically it's been used to nullify the law not make new ones or flout the Constitution.

 

[WanMan99]

Next up, Maura will use this as precedence and declare that “merely being a green member of NES is enough to consider that individual prohibited from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”

That's why I went yellow.....

 

[jhblaze1]

if the law says no gangs, then it is what it is. Bandidos are definitely a criminal organization, i.e. "gang".

 

[drgrant]

if the law says no gangs, then it is what it is. Bandidos are definitely a criminal organization, i.e. "gang".

The law is pretty garbagey though, guilt by association is a dumpster fire. (It doesn't take much brainstorming to figure out why that kind of law is very dangerous). It's basically destroying someones
rights without applying any kind of due process.

-Mike

 

[Darksideblues42]

The law is pretty garbagey though, guilt by association is a dumpster fire. (It doesn't take much brainstorming to figure out why that kind of law is very dangerous). It's basically destroying someones
rights without applying any kind of due process.

-Mike

It is a poorly crafted law, but there is also evidence of gangs, dealers, and "clubs" having a clean friend or member act as a human armory. They have the clean fellow carry several firearms, so that if the unclean ones are searched, nothing comes up.

 

[connor]

Based on Maura's 7/20 edict, one could argue that NES is "a loosely organized group wherein some members are actively committing felonious acts by possession of illegal firearms, therefor ALL members are guilty 'by association' and therefor felons."

Your statement bolded above sounds disturbingly similar to a cop's argument that "He's in the wrong place at the wrong time, so even if he's not guilty of 'x' he must be guilty of something."

Thankfully, your last two sentences clarify for me that that is NOT your premise.

I'm just gonna clarify my pov, since you seem put-off by my generalizations.
I think the middle of my reply is going to scare people till you get to the end, so hold on.

I absolutely don't think that it's right to make people guilty by association. We base our country on innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not hanging out with guilty people.
But life experience has told me that birds of a feather flock together. It's naive to think otherwise. It's possible this guy is a saint who just hung out with this gang, never partaking in the acts, but they initiated him because he's funny and is a great cook. But not likely.

So yeah, I'm gonna assume he's probably in some capacity a criminal. Might not have murdered people, but probably touched some dirty money, drugs, stolen property. Some cursory googling shows that they're a pretty well known as a violent criminal gang. Hell's Angels is number 1, they're number 2.

But it's not fair, safe, or legal to to that in court. I can think that this guy is very likely to be a criminal scumbag and that his rights shouldn't have been taken away. As Ben Shapiro would say, two things can be true at once.

"Probably" isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, and people miss that, or ignore that. The only way to get through to people is to tell them that while there's a chance they probably took the possession rights away from a bad dude, next time, a similar "guilt by association" case might get an innocent guy.
But I think some people still don't care. I think more people are leaning towards the statement "It is better that 100 innocent persons should suffer than that one guilty person should escape" these days, because it feels safer. People are selfish. That's what's scary.


And a law declaring that being a member of criminal organization is illegal is just bogus. That's way different than the rico act. Let's round up everyone who ever worked in any capacity for Madoff. His janitor? Yep, just as complicit as Madoff. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was definitely a criminal organization.

 

[Bob P]

Knee jerk reaction without logic.
I'm not a fan of gangs but I can see the larger issue. It seems nice in theory to ban a bunch of guys, who, let's face it, more than likely are doing illegal shit and haven't gotten caught. Most of them are most likely up to no good. You don't hang around with bad people long without doing bad stuff yourself. You either get roped into it or you leave.
But it's dangerous to start criminalizing affiliations. Guilt by association is decidedly not good.

That’s the argument for Suitably in MA. It’s a crappy argument

 

[cams]

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. And to be honest I’d trust the banditos more than I’d trust any politician to not f*** me or f*** with my life.

Pols have been doing it since I was born, I’ve yet to have any issues with an OMC.

 

[drgrant]

It is a poorly crafted law, but there is also evidence of gangs, dealers, and "clubs" having a clean friend or member act as a human armory. They have the clean fellow carry several firearms, so that if the unclean ones are searched, nothing comes up.

That's cute, but that's still not a good enough reason to just destroy due process.

-Mike

 

[cams]

I sometimes carry 2 or 3 guns just for that case too, if shtf I’d be the first one passing them out to my friends and putting them on line for an assault.

 

[Darksideblues42]

That's cute, but that's still not a good enough reason to just destroy due process.

-Mike

I am not at all saying that it is. I am simply sharing the "justification" for it.