TexasCHLforum.com

How about the fine fellas just hanging out having a good time? Doesn't look like they are engaged in criminal activity at the moment.

I had a new to me truck in 1990. The gas gauge did not work. I was told by the seller that I had a 35 gallon tank. Nope 24. I ran out of fuel between Midland and Odessa. I put a pistol In my pants Mexican carry and I leashed my dog and off I went. Oil field was making shift change and not one good ole white boy pulled over to ask if I needed help, A cholo with his wife and son pulled over and asked me if I needed help. He drove me to a filling station to get a can and fuel. He then took me to my truck. He was covered in tats, wore a hair net and dressed like a gang banger. He refused to take any money and even offered me food if I needed it. Here he was driving a 50's something Ford PU, rattle can painted and he was offering me help.

I have since employed numerous "cholo" looking guys. Two have been my best workers. My worst have been white boys. One ex Army. two college students. I never judge a book by it's cover.

MONGOOSE wrote:I had a new to me truck in 1990. The gas gauge did not work. I was told by the seller that I had a 35 gallon tank. Nope 24. I ran out of fuel between Midland and Odessa. I put a pistol In my pants Mexican carry and I leashed my dog and off I went. Oil field was making shift change and not one good ole white boy pulled over to ask if I needed help, A cholo with his wife and son pulled over and asked me if I needed help. He drove me to a filling station to get a can and fuel. He then took me to my truck. He was covered in tats, wore a hair net and dressed like a gang banger. He refused to take any money and even offered me food if I needed it. Here he was driving a 50's something Ford PU, rattle can painted and he was offering me help.

I have since employed numerous "cholo" looking guys. Two have been my best workers. My worst have been white boys. One ex Army. two college students. I never judge a book by it's cover.

So? How is that relevant to this discussion. I've said in this thread already, not all bad guys are bad all the time and not all good guys are good all the time. I have numerous similar intereactions with tough looking folks that were very positive intereactions. Growing up in Odessa, we used to go hang out at a biker bar on Andrews Hwy and play pool with a bunch of bikers, many OMC members, and they could not have treated us better. That doesn't change the law.

You are conflating the discussion with opinion vs law.

So where was the law broken other than your speculation?

MONGOOSE wrote:So where was the law broken other than your speculation?

I didn't say it was. However, apparently the cop and his superiors belief if was. I'm done with you. You aren't trying to have a discussion. You are only interested in being obstinate.

This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"? That way we could lock 'em all up for wearing the colors. My suspicion is, because that would be unconstitutional on it's face. Otherwise it already would be the law.

This is why I support Constitutional carry. We shouldn't have to beg the State for rights that we already possess.

I suspect lots of people think they're pretty cool 'cause they have met the state mandated requirements and get to carry, unlike the rest of the unwashed masses. OK... Even I collect out of state licenses with states that already have reciprocity, just 'cause I think they're interesting. I used to have multiple DL's before it became illegal to do so.

I don't think licensing for carry is necessarily unconstitutional, but I DO think arbitrary denial based on LEO "perception" is. Our "betters" in government are fond of pointing out that DRIVING is a privilege not a right...a point that I am not willing to concede, but why not deny motorcycle licenses to "Outlaw" MC members? There's no amendment relating to driving.

Finally for OP, my suggestion is to get a Florida CWP, in case you lose the battle to keep your Texas LTC. Just for the next time you get pulled over for NOT FAILING to signal...

ScottDLS wrote: I DO think arbitrary denial based on LEO "perception" is.

Portraying oneself as a member of a recognized gang is not "perception" on the LEO's part, it is observation.
The member is not being targeted for someone's perception, they are being observed as a cut wearing member of a known gang, be it a MC or other criminal gang. As they choose to associate with that gang for all it's perceived and real benefits, so to do they reap the disadvantages of that association

That is a statement, not argumentative As I don't have a feel for your position on it.. just noticed your statement and wanted to add MY point of view.

ScottDLS wrote:This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"?

In some cases it is.. mere association with a group tagged in a RICO case, makes you chargeable and case history shows, convicted at times.

But I think I know you meant that in a broader term..... and you're right,,, that would not stand.. The next "Powers to be" could then write a law saying membership in a group that rides Motorcycles is illegal. Or Owns guns, or

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"?

In some cases it is.. mere association with a group tagged in a RICO case, makes you chargeable and case history shows, convicted at times.

But I think I know you meant that in a broader term..... and you're right,,, that would not stand.. The next "Powers to be" could then write a law saying membership in a group that rides Motorcycles is illegal. Or Owns guns, or

Much more than "mere association" is required for a conviction, otherwise feds could have "RICOed" every patched member and ended all the gangs. You have to be proven to have been involved in directing the "organization". RICO is generally used against the leaders, not the members.

If a MC member doesn't engage in any illegal activity, nor direct such activity, I'm hard pressed to see how denying him a right is constitutional.

ScottDLS wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"?

In some cases it is.. mere association with a group tagged in a RICO case, makes you chargeable and case history shows, convicted at times.

But I think I know you meant that in a broader term..... and you're right,,, that would not stand.. The next "Powers to be" could then write a law saying membership in a group that rides Motorcycles is illegal. Or Owns guns, or

Much more than "mere association" is required for a conviction, otherwise feds could have "RICOed" every patched member and ended all the gangs. You have to be proven to have been involved in directing the "organization". RICO is generally used against the leaders, not the members.

If a MC member doesn't engage in any illegal activity, nor direct such activity, I'm hard pressed to see how denying him a right is constitutional.

Do you plan to file your suit so this can be ajudicated? Do you know of a judicial ruling on this that addresses this issue?

mojo84 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:This all begs the question....why isn't it illegal to BE a member of a "Criminal Street Gang"?

In some cases it is.. mere association with a group tagged in a RICO case, makes you chargeable and case history shows, convicted at times.

But I think I know you meant that in a broader term..... and you're right,,, that would not stand.. The next "Powers to be" could then write a law saying membership in a group that rides Motorcycles is illegal. Or Owns guns, or

Much more than "mere association" is required for a conviction, otherwise feds could have "RICOed" every patched member and ended all the gangs. You have to be proven to have been involved in directing the "organization". RICO is generally used against the leaders, not the members.

If a MC member doesn't engage in any illegal activity, nor direct such activity, I'm hard pressed to see how denying him a right is constitutional.

Do you plan to file your suit so this can be ajudicated? Do you know of a judicial ruling on this that addresses this issue?

Nope. If I were OP I would keep moving forward with my lawyer and also get a Florida CWP, which I would then hand over with a smile the next time I got arrested for not doing something illegal.

We all know that Sodomy, Abortion, and Gay Marriage are constitutionally guaranteed (un)natural rights, so I don't think it's a stretch to extend that to CWW (carrying while "wearing" [colors].

ScottDLS wrote: We all know that Sodomy, Abortion, and Gay Marriage are constitutionally guaranteed (un)natural rights, so I don't think it's a stretch to extend that to CWW (carrying while "wearing" [colors].

Or a person could choose not to be a member of a gang, that would work as well
We all make choices, if someone chooses to be a member of a street gang (which several MC's are so designated), they lose the option to carry a concealed weapon in Texas.
This is not new, it's not in question and I doubt very much such a restricted person is going to get much help from the legal system to lift the restriction.

ScottDLS wrote: If a MC member doesn't engage in any illegal activity, nor direct such activity, I'm hard pressed to see how denying him a right is constitutional.

The gang members rights are not being violated, thier privilege to carry a handgun concealed is being restricted. Why not call it what it is, vs what its not?

E.Marquez wrote:... thier privilege to carry a handgun concealed is being restricted. Why not call it what it is, vs what its not?

Actually it is not a privilege it is our right. 2nd Amendment

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: We all know that Sodomy, Abortion, and Gay Marriage are constitutionally guaranteed (un)natural rights, so I don't think it's a stretch to extend that to CWW (carrying while "wearing" [colors].

Or a person could choose not to be a member of a gang, that would work as well
We all make choices, if someone chooses to be a member of a street gang (which several MC's are so designated), they lose the option to carry a concealed weapon in Texas.
This is not new, it's not in question and I doubt very much such a restricted person is going to get much help from the legal system to lift the restriction.

No, not their option to carry a handgun, just their option to use a Texas LTC to do it. That's why I have no less than 4 licenses that are recognized by Texas in addition to my Texas one. Never know when they might try to take away my LTC for being a Juggalo (fan of hip hop band Insane Clown Posse). Especially if I'm wearing my "colors" (clown makeup).