Not guns, but serious

[Strings]

I recieved this from the president of another BACA chapter (see my sig, "No Child..."). Although I can't see this IMMEDIATELY causing trouble for shooters, it could get pushed. I've attached the relevant letters...

>Attached are four (4) letters, two letters one addressed to the House and one addressed to the Senate regarding the Patriot Act, one letter addressed to the House regarding H.R. 970 and one letter addressed to the Senate regarding S. 155.

These are NASTY BILLS. DO NO BE FOOLED!! If passed they will have a direct effect on your right to ride!!

The Patriot Act letters are self explanatory, but I will paraphrase H.R 970 and S. 155.....You can read them in their entirety at www.govtrack.us or type in each bill in Google and read the bill.

OVERVIEW:

H.R. 970 and S. 155 are bills to increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gang crime, to deter and punish violent gang crime, to protect law abiding citizens and communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crimes.

Great right...WRONG!!! Read the bills. Each bill classifies a gang as three or more individuals wearing "colors" to promote, solicit, or engage in a crime...any crime. In the Bills it is a crime to solicit membership as well.

How does this effect me you ask.....BACA = Three or more members. Crime = how about a cowboy officer reading our Mission Statement "We do not condone the use of violence or physical force in any manner, however, if circumstances arise such that we are the only obstacle preventing a child from further abuse, we stand ready to be that obstacle" This can be seen as solicitation of a crime and should we become that obstacle we have committed the crime by definition in these bills.

Over reacting, no. BACA California has had two member already pulled over and harassed. One was wearing his patch in Alaska and when the Officer called in to his dispatch he said "we have a member of a know California Gang!"

One piece, three piece it does not matter. Trust me when they are done with the larger 1% clubs, they will come after all clubs and/or organizations, They will not want to loose the funding once they receive it!

I can go on and on with stories, but I ask you after you read the bills, fill out the letters and mail them to Richard Lester's office. Mr. Lester will keep the second page to track the letters and send on page one to the applicable member.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Each Letter:
Must be a registered voter. If not registered, get registered!

* Find the name of your Senator and Congressmen. Place that name on the applicable line.
* Find your District number and place that on the applicable line
* Date the letter
* PRINT your name on the line in the last paragraph
* SIGN you name

PAGE TWO:

* Fill out your name and address on the lines given
* Mail both pages of all four letters to the address given.

Please don't delay, time is of the essence here.

Thank you!



*edited to add* This is not an "official" BACA email, but only something from a member...

 

[Biker]

Thanks for posting this Hunter Rose. Truly disturbing. I'll get to wrinting some letters quick, fast, and in a hurry.
Ride Safe.
Biker

 

[TexasRifleman]

Sounds like nasty legislation.

I've never heard of BACA before today. I looked around your website.
Looks like a great organization, I made a meager donation while there, wish I could do more.

Good luck.

 

[Strings]

Hey... it's not MY website! I'm just the president of a chapter that is just starting out...

Yes, BACA does good work. It seems bikers are uniquely suited to helping abused kids regain confidance: how can you be afraid of your abuser, when you know you got several bikers ready to ride to your defence? But I digress...

I can EASILY see this legislation being used against the shooting community, to. Wouldn't be all that much of a stretch for the "Molan Labe" gear to be considered "colors", now would it? So I thought y'all might like to know...

 

[TallPine]

Red, white, and blue ...?

 

[c_yeager]

Each bill classifies a gang as three or more individuals wearing "colors" to promote, solicit, or engage in a crime...any crime. In the Bills it is a crime to solicit membership as well.

Um, you know I took the advice of the letter and read the definition of a gang in the bill and this is not quite what it says.

here is the text from HR 970 (full text here : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.970.IH:

The term `criminal street gang' means a formal or informal group, club, organization, or association of 3 or more individuals, who individually, jointly, or in combination, have committed or attempted to commit for the direct or indirect benefit of, at the direction of, in furtherance of, or in association with the group, club organization, or association at least 2 separate acts, each of which is a predicate gang crime, 1 of which occurs after the date of enactment of the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2004, and the last of which occurs not later than 10 years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior predicate gang crime, and 1 predicate gang crime is a crime of violence or involves manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemicals (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) provided that the activities of the criminal street gang affect interstate or foreign commerce, or involve the use of any facility of, or travel in, interstate or foreign commerce.

In fact "colors" arent even mentioned on the bill. The bill states that a gang is a group of three or more individuals who commit TWO "predicate gang crimes"* within ten years of each other and at least ONE crime that is either violent or involves drug trafficing. The bill also states that the activities must be interstate in nature (limitation of federal government).

*the predicate gang crimes are:
`(i) murder;

`(ii) manslaughter;

`(iii) maiming;

`(iv) assault with a dangerous weapon;

`(v) assault resulting in serious bodily injury;

`(vi) gambling;

`(vii) kidnapping;

`(viii) robbery;

`(ix) extortion;

`(x) arson;

`(xi) obstruction of justice;

`(xii) tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant;

`(xiii) burglary;

`(xiv) sexual assault (which means any offense that involves conduct that would violate chapter 109A if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction);

`(xv) carjacking; or

`(xvi) manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemicals (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

Here is the link to the text of this section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109PAGRII:e9189:

Now, I havent read the whole thing (its HUGE) so there may be plenty of awful things still in the bill that I havent seen, but as far as the definition of the term "gang" is concerned I am troubled by the fact the BACA seems to be misrepresenting what is actually stated in the bill. In fact it seems that for once the feds actually did a decent job of making a definition that applied rather well to the "one percenters" without including anyone else. The fact that there MUST be a drug/violent offense means that even if BACA members started getting charged with harrasment/obstruction they couldnt be defined as a gang under this law.

I am always a little nervous when form complaint letters are included with an appeal for political help. It always strikes me that the intention is to generate as much paper as possible while discouraging people from doing their homework on the issue itself.

 

[beerslurpy]

Sweet, my vigilante gang is safe unless we cross over the border into georgia.

Then again, the Duke boys may get away.

 

[LawDog]

Some cop got his knickers into a knot over BACA? Are you serious?

Hell, we've got BACA on speed-dial.

Looking over the bill, I don't see that it's anything for BACA to be worried about, in it's current incarnation. This isn't to say that some clueless congress-critters won't try to attach an amendment to it, so I'd keep a weather-eye on it, just as a precaution.

LawDog