Car Knocker
Member
If the person wanting a CCW meets the CCW requirements, on what basis should he be denied? Denial of CCW for membership in an organization would turn into a steep slippery slope very quickly.
Many Biker Gang Members Armed, Legally
- Thread starter Devonai
- Start date
- Status
If the person wanting a CCW meets the CCW requirements, on what basis should he be denied? Denial of CCW for membership in an organization would turn into a steep slippery slope very quickly.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Geez, my fiftysomething boss is a biker, rode in Rolling Thunder last year, and is one of those who helps shield military funerals from Fred Phelps' followers. He's also squeaky clean and probably has a Secret government clearance. He'd have no problem qualifying for a CCW permit if he wanted one (if he doesn't already have one).
Several of my thirtysomething coworkers are also bikers, both men and women. One woman (and mother of two) rides her Harley to work. She and her husband did Bike Week in Myrtle Beach this year, as I recall.
That article seems to contain the underlying assumption that avid biker = outlaw (or even Outlaw). That's garbage.
Several of my thirtysomething coworkers are also bikers, both men and women. One woman (and mother of two) rides her Harley to work. She and her husband did Bike Week in Myrtle Beach this year, as I recall.
That article seems to contain the underlying assumption that avid biker = outlaw (or even Outlaw). That's garbage.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
my neighbor
in 79-81 was a pagan. got busted for running a bawdy house next door.(and ti my everlasting shame i was unaware).
big burly guy named bear(no teddy)
i was a lil skinny 1/2 japanese guy with a dozen rice burners. he was a great neighbor and a good friend. he razzed me about the rice burners a lot but looked out for me and my family. he was the kinda guy if you were in a bar fight and he had your back it was covered. if you got hit from behind figure he was dead.
a saint he wasn't but a stand up guyi'd be proud to call friend.
he was a very responsible guy with guns as well taught me gun safety and i needed the lessons.
in 79-81 was a pagan. got busted for running a bawdy house next door.(and ti my everlasting shame i was unaware).
big burly guy named bear(no teddy)
i was a lil skinny 1/2 japanese guy with a dozen rice burners. he was a great neighbor and a good friend. he razzed me about the rice burners a lot but looked out for me and my family. he was the kinda guy if you were in a bar fight and he had your back it was covered. if you got hit from behind figure he was dead.
a saint he wasn't but a stand up guyi'd be proud to call friend.
he was a very responsible guy with guns as well taught me gun safety and i needed the lessons.
Frog48
Member
Another example of the police and media portraying law-abiding citizens as criminals, simply because they own firearms.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Biker says,
Sorry. I do. I know members of the Outlaws.
Don't like it. Tuff.
How about being engaged in ongoing criminal enterprises? Is that ground enough for denial? You betcha.
Sorry. I do. I know members of the Outlaws.
Don't like it. Tuff.
How about being engaged in ongoing criminal enterprises? Is that ground enough for denial? You betcha.
gunsmith
member
Well just go
and take the guns from the outlaw gangs....seems simple enuff
and take the guns from the outlaw gangs....seems simple enuff
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
can i watch?
i can make a ton selling the video
i can make a ton selling the video
PandR...
I was referring to your entire post and I think you know that. You *still* don't know what you're talking about. How many gun owners do you know that break the law on occasion? Do you make it through a day without breaking a law? I doubt it. Should you be denied the right to carry?
Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I think.
Biker
I was referring to your entire post and I think you know that. You *still* don't know what you're talking about. How many gun owners do you know that break the law on occasion? Do you make it through a day without breaking a law? I doubt it. Should you be denied the right to carry?
Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I think.
Biker
Car Knocker
Member
Don't you think a conviction would be a nice formality to observe before denial of a CCW?
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Which is it, biker? On occasion or a day? Get it straight.
Your post is a non sequitur.
Your premise is wrong. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion.
Absolutely not. Anyone belonging to a criminal enterprise should be subject to prosecution.
Bag that pseudo intellectual crap and answer an honest question in an honest manner. Do you go through a day without breaking a law? If you do not, should that preclude you from carrying?
Sack up and answer the questions or go home.
Biker
Sack up and answer the questions or go home.
Biker
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Another non sequitur.
It makes no difference whether I break the law or not. That has no bearing on whether another lawbreaker should be allowed to CCW. And that is
the law.
It makes no difference whether I break the law or not. That has no bearing on whether another lawbreaker should be allowed to CCW. And that is
the law.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
No. That's your premise. I never included all "lawbreakers" in that category. You did, even if purely for the purpose of illustration.
My premise is that mere membership in any criminal enterprise is
prima facie evidence of a crime. And should be subject to prosecution/denial of gun ownership.
I don't care if it's the Outlaws, the Crips, or the Russian Mafia. In my opinion, mere membership should be prosecutable.
gunsmith
member
& when thr
becomes a criminal enterprise because it promotes double plus un good ideas, will you stop owning guns?
becomes a criminal enterprise because it promotes double plus un good ideas, will you stop owning guns?
PandR...
So, association is enough to deny CCW?
Also, assuming everyone breaks a law or three every day (prove me wrong), anyone belonging to any org - which, by your definition is a criminal enterprise - should be denied the right to carry?
Biker
So, association is enough to deny CCW?
Also, assuming everyone breaks a law or three every day (prove me wrong), anyone belonging to any org - which, by your definition is a criminal enterprise - should be denied the right to carry?
Biker
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Membership in any criminal enterprise should be prosecuted as criminal.
Your point is obviously that there are levels of criminal behavior. A misdemeanor, for example, should not be prosecuted as would a felony.
At least, that's what I think you're saying.
But the existence of misdemeanors do not vacate felonies. And criminal enterprises are felonious. Therefore have no second amendment rights.
That is my opinion.
I might also point out that my opinion carries no weight. I'm neither a judge nor a LEO.
And my opinion obviously has no precedent in law, otherwise we would not be debating.
carebear
Member
Not that I know the membership requirements for the Outlaws but from the ATF agents book I just read (Under and Alone) I don't recall "committing a felony" to be one of them. You might be expected to be willing to I'm sure but, absent a requirement to commit (and be caught/prosecuted for) a felony at entry I'm not sure how that makes you an active or convictable member of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Everyone who worked for Enron wasn't engaged in systematic fraud.
I know that's a bit precious but the law requires a conviction for something and just being a member of the Outlaws (which, yes, does have lots of members who regularly commit crimes and, yes, they apparently do promote a "criminal" outlook in general) doesn't and shouldn't qualify.
This place is full of folks who probably carry illegally given their physical locations and probably there are subsets who actively violate other gun laws but membership and association do not equal culpability.
Everyone who worked for Enron wasn't engaged in systematic fraud.
I know that's a bit precious but the law requires a conviction for something and just being a member of the Outlaws (which, yes, does have lots of members who regularly commit crimes and, yes, they apparently do promote a "criminal" outlook in general) doesn't and shouldn't qualify.
This place is full of folks who probably carry illegally given their physical locations and probably there are subsets who actively violate other gun laws but membership and association do not equal culpability.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
bear said,
I said,
Should is the qualifier, here.
I said,
Should is the qualifier, here.
carebear
Member
Pinned,
You know we have to prove the criminal enterprise thing to make it work.
There have been RICO cases against the Outlaws (and the other gangs) before and even those didn't incriminate all associates, or even all full-patch members, just those persons actively involved in the particular criminal conspiracy. RICO, to my mind, is a right on the edge of unConstitutional law. The definition of "involved" is pretty broad as is.
I know you don't want to hear it but it really is one of those "If we start, where does it stop?" kind of situations. How broad a net do we cast and how do we do it knowing that it can and will be used against gunnies in the future should an antigun administration, Congress and Court coincide?
I'd rather allow the non-convicted 1%'s to keep their permits and guns and concentrate on busting them when/if they actually break a real law themselves. Same as I want to apply that standard to you and me.
It's the only Constitutional and freedom-preserving way.
You know we have to prove the criminal enterprise thing to make it work.
There have been RICO cases against the Outlaws (and the other gangs) before and even those didn't incriminate all associates, or even all full-patch members, just those persons actively involved in the particular criminal conspiracy. RICO, to my mind, is a right on the edge of unConstitutional law. The definition of "involved" is pretty broad as is.
I know you don't want to hear it but it really is one of those "If we start, where does it stop?" kind of situations. How broad a net do we cast and how do we do it knowing that it can and will be used against gunnies in the future should an antigun administration, Congress and Court coincide?
I'd rather allow the non-convicted 1%'s to keep their permits and guns and concentrate on busting them when/if they actually break a real law themselves. Same as I want to apply that standard to you and me.
It's the only Constitutional and freedom-preserving way.
Frog48
Member
But the point is that without a conviction of "conspiracy to commit (fill in the blank)", nobody can *prove* that an individual is part of a criminal enterprise. In order for a "criminal enterprise" to exist, there must be a coordinated effort to commit crime. There is a difference between individual criminal acts committed within a group, and a criminal enterprise.
But all this criminal enterprise vs individual actions mumbo jumbo is irrelevant.
In a "shall issue" state, you cant be denied a CCW without a disqualifying conviction on your record. Suspicion of criminality is not adequate.
But all this criminal enterprise vs individual actions mumbo jumbo is irrelevant.
In a "shall issue" state, you cant be denied a CCW without a disqualifying conviction on your record. Suspicion of criminality is not adequate.
Well, I think the article was fairly reasonable given it mentioned most carried legally and that the legal permits were honored and considering there actually was a firefight between two gangs. Doesn't exactly help the cause and it is not the same as a "police convention". When has there ever been a firefight between rival police departments at a convention?
carebear
Member
strambo said:
They're hushed up and they usually turn out to involve donuts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
