Texas Jury decides no Bandidos can possess firearms

Tallen said:
I suppose that means a jury could do the same for police too.
Click to expand...

Nope:

PENAL CODE

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

CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
...
Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon; ...

Zappa said:
So it's OK if they're riding as a passenger as long as they don't own the car ???
Click to expand...

Bingeaux (pardon my French).

Someone should tell Dave Ramsey about this One Strange Situation
when it's appropriate to lease a car instead of buying it outright.

Radtekk said:
... reading the ENTIRE artcle, one learns that the defendant lost ALL rights to carry, NOT just "while operating."
Click to expand...

Texas allows purchase and ownership of
handguns+long arms,
and carry of long arms,
on the constitution -
no permit required.

I don't see in the laws of Texas
where someone freshly convicted of a class A misdemeanor
loses the above rights. That includes "DT", the defendant.


Carry of handguns (concealed or open) requires a shall-issue LTC,
except that no license is needed to carry handguns out of the house and into your car,
and drive around carrying them (open or concealed) - even loaded.
You can't take them out of the car anywhere but back home.
This exception was created by the 2007 Motorists Protection Act:

PENAL CODE

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

CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
...
Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster; ...

I infer that "DT", the defendant, doesn't have an LTC.
 
cams said:
... to be honest I’d trust the banditos more than I’d trust any politician to not f*** me or f*** with my life.
Click to expand...

I'd tried to find some articles on "DT"'s case in the MSM.

I was afraid that since he hangs out with choir boys,
the articles would be lost in the torrent of Bandidos bake sales, etc.

Yep: Google News: "el paso" "bandidos" "gun"
71azht1WUpL._SY550_.jpg
 
So wrong! They should have affirmed the right to carry. Then one could assume any furtive hand movement reaching towards the waistband was reaching for heat, justifying shooting them down. While body/dash cams were off/malfunctioning.
 
one-eyed Jack said:
Since when can a jury change written law? Jack.
Click to expand...

They can nullify a law or evidence regarding a decision that they are charged with making, but they cannot write or enact a new law just because they'd like to.
This is why we have 3 branches of gov. Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

That case should be appealed to the SCOTUS and the judge removed from the bench.
 
cams said:
Sorry I don’t get it.
Click to expand...

Bandidos are such bad boys that the blood drained from my face just scrolling the litany of crime stories.

(And I own a paperback of Hunter S. Thompson's "Hell's Angels").

ETA: I've never quite understood why criminal or seditious conspiracies had formal "membership". Were all the mid-century card-carrying Reds in Hollywood
attracted by some kind of discount at ur-Starbucks?

Maybe it's a way to get in to an out-of-town hall for the evening's Commie cabal meeting?

Anyhow, unless "DT" was a brand-new Bandido, it seems like it might have been Texprudent for a cowboy who allegedly packs heat to kill sneks that threaten the livestock, to back away from the biker gang sometime after they were declared a 2A-killing criminal conspiracy.

How+About+No.jpg

=====

Fair to say that most NESers see this Texas law as a slippery slope risk that nibbles away at freedom of association, but exacts penalties (today) on RKBA.

(As might have been pointed out earlier in the thread), one way to think about this is to consider how one feels about the Brady Act's FPP amendment to GCA68 -
the general concept, the particular set of prohibited traits, the risk of trait inflation.

(As ISTR was pointed out earlier in the thread), that moves on to consider how would one feel about membership in a biker gang constituting a kind of "enhancement" to trigger PP status once one was fairly convicted of an actual crime.

Uzi2 said:
They can nullify a law or evidence regarding a decision that they are charged with making, but they cannot write or enact a new law just because they'd like to.
This is why we have 3 branches of gov. Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

That case should be appealed to the SCOTUS and the judge removed from the bench.
Click to expand...

Never say never.

A jury verdict of Not Guilty (even if because of jury nullification)
can't be appealed because it violates Double Jeopardy.
But a judge's directed verdict of Not Guilty notwithstanding a jury's Guilty verdict
can apparently be appealed.

Also, a sentence for a Guilty verdict can be appealed
(by either side).

If an appeal bumps up high enough,
it might result in a new binding precedent.

If the jury's verdict was the seed crystal for the process,
then one might fairly say that the case law came from nullification.
 
Last edited:
Texas Jury decides no Bandidos can possess firearms...

81 Approves! [thumbsup]
 
connor said:
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.
Click to expand...
o_O:rolleyes::rolleyes:o_Oo_Oo_Oo_O
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
o_O:rolleyes::rolleyes:o_Oo_Oo_Oo_O
Click to expand...
Bob P said:
That’s the argument for Suitably in MA. It’s a crappy argument
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of my post. I was responding to "The First Amendment promises freedom of association. When did that get edited out? "
I explained why people are so quick to throw out freedom of association
My last two sentences explain that I disagree with that jump to toss out freedom of association.
 
Since all the Rico statute bullshit started back in 70s just working for a legit business owned , even indirectly by someone connected could land you as a known associate . There is a million ways for them to screw with your rights.
 
This is peanuts compared to what the Australian government did to some of the clubs out there. Last time I checked I think they made it illegal for certain clubs to wear colors in public. Tried that in California I think with the Mongols at one point.
 
Beretta92FS said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Next up ? Have you forgotten July 20th 2016, How many NES members were effected by that ? We already have a target on our backs.
 
Heathen said:
I'm sure the Bandidos are really broken up about it and will stop carrying their guns now.[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

The PSH dripping from the OP's linked article is sure getting in the way of rational discussion.
(7 pages(sic) and counting in the matching ARFCOM thread, and no one has noticed that the defendant's
right to possess hasn't actually been revoked by the sentence in his criminal conviction).


BTW, reading ARFCOM gave some more clarity:
  1. "DT"'s spiel was that he had the gun because he's a cowboy and sneks happen. However, the fact that he was convicted implies that he doesn't have a Texas LTC, and shooting snakes and other predators aren't exceptions to the LTC mandates. So if he really doesn't have an LTC, he admitted to carrying in prohibited places, and The Man didn't lift a cuticle to jack him up on it; i.e., he got off easy.
  2. If "DT" really had a handgun Because Sneks - not Because Sneks and Carjaxers - then if he had merely transported it inaccessibly in a saddlebag or lockbox, he wouldn't have been required to disclose during the traffic stop, and he would have gotten off with nothing more than a speeding ticket. In other words, he talked himself into jail.

Roadglide said:
This is peanuts compared to what the Australian government did to some of the clubs out there. Last time I checked I think they made it illegal for certain clubs to wear colors in public. Tried that in California I think with the Mongols at one point.
Click to expand...

Life's pretty cheap to that type.

41671a_lg.jpeg
 
drgrant said:
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
Click to expand...
of course....that goes without saying. And "gang affiliation" isn't always so easy to prove...sure a guy wearing a Bandidos patch might be obvious...but most non biker gangs use tats...a tat can't be taken off if Jorge leaves MS-13 to open a bakery. The law is dumb as shit.

Problem is 99.9% of jury pool isn't even aware of jury nullification.
 
AHM said:
The PSH dripping from the OP's linked article is sure getting in the way of rational discussion.
(7 pages(sic) and counting in the matching ARFCOM thread, and no one has noticed that the defendant's
right to possess hasn't actually been revoked by the sentence in his criminal conviction).
Click to expand...
Except: he can't carry without a CHL, and because he's now been convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, he can't apply for a CHL until 5 years have passed.
 
So if NES starts a softball team and we all wear matching uniforms whats to say we are not a gang ? After a game we are tailgating having a cool refreshing beverage . One member celebrates too much and gets pulled over after failing a breath test and arrested a routine search turns up a loaded Thompson with a drum mag in the trunk .Are we all arrested under the RICO act ?
 
But it's not illegal to be illegal..Or so said the great Martha Coakley..[rofl]
By the undocumented gang member.
Your in my sanctuary city, silly!

Our politicians are more dangerous to our freedoms than any terrorist nation could ever be!

They sell out everyone's freedoms for another vote or day in office!

Right now, no country on earth can conquer the United States as a nation of people.
But in the not to distant future they will just sit by till our politicians enslave us from the inside.
Then they will move in for the easy kill!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Grand Jury Declines to Prosecute Texas Mother Who Shot 14-Year-Old Boy During Break-In
Replies
2
Views
179
Agnotology
Agnotology
Convicted Non-Violent Felons Can Own Guns, Ninth Circuit Rules
Replies
0
Views
89
Reptile
Reptile
B Kings Firearms Ohio
Replies
4
Views
321
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
  • Locked
Massachusetts man arrested for possessing firearms, std-cap mags without an LTC
Replies
5
Views
464
jkelly1229
J
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
401
clampett
clampett
Back
Top Bottom