“There is no attempt to keep them from assembling.”
You’re just talking in circles now. Just repeating the assertion you’ve been arguing does nothing to invalidate my argument.
“The sponsor isn’t relevant.”
It certainly is. Who do you think the government would have had to take legal action against in order to stop the event? Hypothetical possible attendees? Or the sponsor?
“In addition, if the government has evidence that the Bandidos or other groups were conspiring to commit violence, that is enough, on its own, to arrest and indict.”
Perhaps, but nobody ever said the government had enough evidence, prior to the events that day, to make a case. Hell, you don’t even think they have enough evidence to make their cases now, with all the additional evidence gathered after the bloody shootout. There is a large gulf between having evidence that a crime may occur and having evidence that is of a sufficient level to prosecute.
No, I started out noting that refusing to allow a group to assemble in one particular place is not the same as banning them from assembling. It's a stark and relevant factor that you consistently blow off.
-- Who do you think the government would have had to take legal action against in order to stop the event? Hypothetical possible attendees? Or the sponsor? --
Action is always against the problem. Who is the problem, the hypothetical possible attendees or the sponsor?
Name the persons or groups to be restricted, all else goes on freely. COCI is free to have its meeting.
-- ... but nobody ever said the government had enough evidence, prior to the events that day, to make a case. --
Uhhhh, yeah, that is implied by the arrest of 180+ on probable cause of committing conspiracy.
-- Hell, you don't even think they have enough evidence to make their cases now ... --
That's true. But you, on the other hand, think the evidence is adequate, and that 180+ are guilty of conspiracy.
-- There is a large gulf between having evidence that a crime may occur and having evidence that is of a sufficient level to prosecute. --
You mean like the difference between probable cause (which justifies arrest), and "beyond a reasonable doubt" for conviction? For purposes of this disagreement between us, the standard is the lower, probable cause.