TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:15 pm 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/

SewTexas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:44 pm

Rob72 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:31 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:27 pm In that case, prosecute the person if they have committed one of the crimes listed above. Association should not be a crime.

Participation in gang activity, "pledging in", is a public statement of agreement and support of, the activities of the gang. If you don't believe criminal activity is a valid lifestyle, why would you be a member of a gang? Great retirement benefits?

read your other comment and you'll get your answer, if that doesn't help, read mine.

Ex-EMT, ex-Corrections, ex-Ryan White/Infectious Diseases Nurse, current rehab sponsor. I understand gangs and their activities.
Please understand, the most fantastic legal acts of self-gratification will not change two facts: 1) gangs thrive where they are tolerated, 2) if you're a "virgin" in a gang, you're first tag for a high-value felony, as you'll (generally) serve the least time, and get your real training while you're in-house.

Regarding the current legal status of gang membership, legality is largely because the populace would not tolerate war in the streets for the (short) time it would take to eradicate most of them. Legally, the case law does exist to pursue making membership illegal, there is simply no will. E.g., if possession=intent, membership=intent. Again, we can play hypothetical all day, but the bottom line is that "gangs" are not social clubs, with benign social goals.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:27 pm In that case, prosecute the person if they have committed one of the crimes listed above. Association should not be a crime.

Participation in gang activity, "pledging in", is a public statement of agreement and support of, the activities of the gang. If you don't believe criminal activity is a valid lifestyle, why would you be a member of a gang? Great retirement benefits?

rotor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:12 pm I have always wondered how gang membership could be outlawed. Some might say NRA membership should be outlawed. Interesting and I don't have an answer.

You're kidding, right? Criminal enterprise in support of political change is more commonly called, "terrorism."

Summary of common RICO prosecutions of gangs:
Sex trafficing
Sex trafficing of a child
Prostitution
Production/distribution of illicit substances
Production/distribution of illegal weapons
Production/distribution of automatic weapons
Production/distribution of explosives
Felony theft motor vehicle
Felony theft property
Armed robbery
Collusion for systematic Home invasion
Collusion to commit murder
etc., etc..

Oddly, members of gangs participate in these activities more commonly than members of the NRA. Oddly, so do members of PETA...

I would also note that modern interpretation of the First Amendment is largely the produce of, "legislation from the bench." Strict Constitutionalists would say that Political/Religious speech is protected, not the fart-whistling opinions so commonly pulled in under the umbrella.