Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: AMDG&BVMH
Anyway, I can’t be held responsible for what other posters say.

Who is holding you responsible? Therefore, one who supports a criminal gang despite the meaning and intent of the statute, does support criminal outlaws, UNLESS he also decries the unconstitutionality of the Statute — not merely its application in this case.

For clarity please define "supports a criminal gang."

521 posted on 09/09/2015 1:05:56 PM PDT by don-o (I am Kenneth Carlisle - Waco 5/17/15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies ]


To: don-o

“For clarity please define “supports a criminal gang.””

The Statute.

Either the Statue is Constitutional, or it is not. In the mesan time for purposes of discussion, it had to be what the Statute includes as a criminal gang.


541 posted on 09/09/2015 1:33:15 PM PDT by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson