The next Colorado COC Meeting for the Front Range Region
Will be Held on
November 5th, 2017 @ noon
Location: VFW 501, 4747 W Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80204
The next Colorado COC Meeting for the Front Range Region
Will be Held on
November 5th, 2017 @ noon
Location: VFW 501, 4747 W Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80204
Loma Linda (CA)- Brandon Quaid, Owner/Sales Director at Quaid Harley-Davidson in Loma Linda, emailed the MPP in response to a recent article relating to “no colors or cuts” at a recent Bike Night event. (see Harley-Davidson Dealer Bans Motorcycle Colors at Bike Night, September 21, 2017 )
Quaid feels that the City of Loma Linda imposed the permit conditions without warning. Quaid HD maintains that they refused to enforce the policy, colors and cuts were present for bike night, and that they even contacted local clubs to warn them of the city’s position.
Not complying is better than complying, it is the opinion of the MPP that not signing the permit in the first place would have sent a clear signal and eliminated much misperception and would also preserve standing for Quaid HD to take action against the city.
Although Quaid doesn’t deny that an employee of Quaid HD signed the agreement, he strongly maintains that the dealership was not in collusion or agreement with the city’s conditions requiring a ban on colors or cuts.
The post Harley-Davidson Dealer Blames “No Colors or Cuts” Policy on City appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
A Harley Davidson dealership located in California (Quaid HD) agreed to a “no motorcycle colors” policy as a condition of a SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT application provided by the City of Loma Linda. The application was signed by Selene Hinckley of Quaid Harley-Davison. It is well established that motorcycle club colors are protected by the First Amendment from government discrimination. Loma Linda’s permit requirement is a blatant infringement on the protected rights of expression and association. And Harley Davidson, by being complicit, is arguably in collusion with the local PD and may therefore be liable under the state actor doctrine. Maybe more important, Harley-Davidson is discriminating against the very foundations that their brand rests upon. Can you imagine the economic impact if motorcycle clubs, their members, their friends, and their families refused to buy motorcycles or apparel from Harley-Davidson?
The National Council of Clubs (NCOC), a group of motorcycle clubs dedicated to advancing the legal, legislative, and political interests of motorcyclists nationwide, has reported to the MPP that they will be sending an official complaint to the City of Loma Linda requesting that the discriminatory “no colors or cuts allowed” condition be removed from all policies, permits or procedures. Additionally, the NCOC intends to send a complaint to Harley-Davidson, Quaid and Corporate, reminding them that they are a complicit party to unconstitutional behavior and that abandoning the club community is a potential economic disaster for an iconic brand.
The MPP will keep close tabs on any new developments in the story. Until then, the MPP encourages motorcyclists and their supporters to contact Quaid Harley-Davidson, Harley- Davidson Corporate, and the City of Loma Linda to voice their condemnation of blatant discrimination.
The post Harley-Davidson Dealer Bans Motorcycle Colors at Bike Night appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
The MPP is issuing this Travel Advisory to all members and associates of motorcycle clubs traveling in or to the state of Texas.
WARNING- As a motorcycle club member, there is a legitimate risk of being arrested for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon in the state of Texas solely because of membership or association with a motorcycle club, even if you posses a legitimate carry permit recognized by the state. The MPP believes that the risk is exponentially higher for members and associates of 1% motorcycle clubs.
ABC News in El Paso reported this last weekend that 5 members of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club were arrested for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon (click to read article), even though every one could legally possess a weapon, solely because of their membership or association with the motorcycle club. They were initially stopped by the El Paso PD Gang Unit for an alleged failure to properly signal. All 5 men are from New Mexico and were traveling to El Paso to attend a funeral for a deceased member. (NOTE: The MPP has confirmed that only 2 of the 5 were members of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club)
This is not a isolated event. In November 2015, the MPP reported that “the trend to confiscate handguns and revoke legally obtained permits from motorcycle club members in America is on the rise.
From Houston to Long Island, and now back to Texas, law enforcement is aggressively targeting the gun rights of those in motorcycle clubs.” (See Revoking Gun Rights from Motorcycle Clubs is on the Rise, November 12, 2015). That trend, particularly in Texas, shows no signs of slowing down.
This assault on fundamental 1st and 2nd Amendment rights is based on a Texas statute that makes it illegal for a gang member to carry a weapon. Many motorcycle clubs are labeled gangs by law enforcement, so the implications are vast and impact thousands of US citizens.
According to the Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.02, UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01. “Criminal street gang” means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.
This statute is diametrically opposed to fundamental 1st Amendment liberties. To permit the government to impose restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence.” see Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)
Every American should pay attention and be extremely concerned. “In a very real way, the fate of motorcyclists will serve as a blue print for other groups in the future. Disarming bikers, even those associated that have no criminal records of any kind, is a strategy to cripple the rights base of one of the most visible and active grassroots social and political movements in America.
Much of the movement’s efforts are to combat civil liberty abuses by law enforcement targeting motorcyclists. If bikers are successfully marginalized as criminals not worthy of baseline liberties, then the strength of our political movement exposing law enforcement abuses will be crippled as well. It’s a blueprint for social control in the 21st Century.” (See It’s illegal for Motorcycle Club Members to Own Guns? That’s What Authorities Say., August 25, 2015)
The post MC Members Being Arrested For Unlawful Carry Without Cause appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
There are many unanswered questions relating to the May 17, 2015 shooting at a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas. But what is known provides more than enough to establish that an irrefutable miscarriage of justice has occurred.
177 people were arrested without any individualized or specific probable cause. They were arrested solely based on their association with a motorcycle club, including individuals that law enforcement acknowledges committed no crimes. Each individual arrested was given 1-2 million dollar bails explicitly “to send a message”, which is a clear violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against punitive bail.
A cornerstone of a free society is the idea that protecting one innocent person outweighs society’s interest in punishing the guilty. The ends do not justify the means. The issues of false arrest and excessive bail should take priority over the interests of punishing any guilty party present at Twin Peaks. The interests of the innocent are simply more important from a societal perspective.
This is not about any one motorcycle club. What happens in the Waco prosecution will have far reaching impacts on the entire culture of motorcycle clubs and the 1st Amendment issues of expression and association. And the results of the initial trials could have far reaching impacts on the remaining trials.
The Bandidos Motorcycle Club and associates have been targeted and are being prosecuted first. Time is short. Help is needed. The amount of legal resources available often equates to a better defense. The first trial is set for September, 2017.
Any motorcycle club member, motorcyclist, or individual concerned about the wider implications of the Waco tragedy can contribute to the legal defense of the first club being prosecuted by sending checks or money orders to:
Texas attorney Bill Morian has confirmed that USARG Inc./BMC is a legitimate and registered 501c3 Nonprofit, that all funds will be used strictly for legitimate purposes, and that all funds are absolutely transparent and reported.
Remember, a failure to support those being targeted only means there will be no one left to stand next to your club or loved ones when they are eventually targeted in the same way as those present in Waco on May 17, 2015.
Supporting victims of the Waco prosecution is supporting motorcycle club culture and the idea that constitutional principles protecting innocent people are far more important than the goals of the corrupt criminal justice system in Waco.
The post Support the Legal Defense Fund for Victims of the Waco Tragedy appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
San Marcos (TX)- The San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) has publicly rejected motorcycle profiling and discrimination in response to an inquiry regarding a recent Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP) request that the SMPD cease and desist from recommending that private owners make their establishments unwelcome to motorcycle clubs by adopting “no motorcycle colors” policies. The department explains that such recommendations are the result of one well-intentioned but misguided officer’s actions that are “not in line with the policies of the San Marcos Police Department.” The SMPD reminds KXAN that the department “has a policy against profiling and discrimination” and “support[s] the rights of people to peaceably assemble regardless of their appearance, clothing or affiliation with any group.”
Although, as of this writing, the SMPD has not directly responded to the MPP’s request, KXAN News in Austin reached out to the MPP and the SMPD for comment, and ran a follow up to the original story exposing the SMPD recommendations.(click to view) In a statement sent to KXAN, in answer to KXAN’s inquiries, the SMPD rejects profiling and separates the agency from the recommendations that private owners exclude club members.
From KXAN- The full statement received from the City of San Marcos:
A San Marcos police officer gave well intentioned advice to some local business owners in response to incidents that took place at their establishments. While well meaning, some of that advice is not in line with the polices of the San Marcos Police Department. In fact, the San Marcos Police Department has a policy against profiling and discrimination.
Our department is here to serve and assist the entire community, that includes both business owners and their patrons. We are sometimes called upon to assist in situations that may arise at a business, and in some cases to assist when a person is criminally trespassing. We also support the rights of people to peaceably assemble regardless of their appearance, clothing or affiliation with any group.
Our downtown, and our entire community welcomes all law-abiding citizens and visitors.
The post Pressure Causes San Marcos Police to Condemn Motorcycle Profiling appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
Motorcyclists from Texas and around the US, many wearing motorcycle-related patches and colors, regularly visit public establishments and bars in San Marcos, Texas.
Recently, the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) made a prejudicial recommendation to downtown San Marcos businesses to implement a broad policy of discrimination against any individual wearing motorcycle-related insignia or colors.
These recommendations amount to coercive pressure from a government actor to implement policies of discrimination. It is settled law that motorcycle patches and colors are Constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment from acts of government discrimination. Prohibiting individuals from expressing themselves with patches or insignia exposes the government to liability under 42 USC §1983.
No agent of the government may pressure or coerce any establishment to impose a dress code that prohibits attendees from wearing clothing displaying the name or symbols associated with a motorcycle organization.
The Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP), an organization representing the interests of motorcyclists in Texas and across America, is requesting that the San Marcos PD cease and desist from any further discriminatory recommendations relating to motorcycle clubs and has sent the following letter:
July 25, 2017
Chase Stapp – Chief of Police
San Marcos Police Department
Dear Chief Stapp,
Recently, the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) issued a prejudicial recommendation to downtown San Marcos businesses to implement a broad policy of discrimination against any individual wearing motorcycle-related insignia or colors. These recommendations amount to coercive pressure from a government actor to implement policies of discrimination. It is settled law that motorcycle patches and colors are Constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment from acts of government discrimination.
No agent of the government may recommend, pressure or coerce any establishment to impose a dress code that prohibits attendees from wearing clothing displaying the name or symbols associated with a motorcycle organization. Prohibiting individuals from expressing themselves with patches or insignia exposes the government to liability under 42 USC §1983.
The Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP), an organization representing the interests of motorcyclists in Texas and across America, is requesting that the San Marcos PD cease and desist from any further discriminatory recommendations relating to motorcycle clubs and issue a statement informing the public based on the attached analysis. (See pages 2-4)
The MPP looks forward to your response and resolution of this issue.
Motorcycle Profiling Project
1San Marcos Record, “Merchants Warned About Motorcycle Gangs Downtown”, June 30, 2017
2Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369, 387 U. S. 380 (1967) Pp. 387 U. S. 373-381
3Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 267
4Supra Note 2 Reitman v. Mulkey
5 Supra Note 2 Reitman v. Mulkey
6Supra Note 2 Reitman v. Mulkey
7Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972), 407 U.S. 179, citing Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948)
8Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 334 U. S. 13 (1948)
10See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 755-56, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957); Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1985).
11Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1989)
12Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
13 Ramon Rivera v. Carter, ATF, Case No. 2:09-cv-2435 (C. D. 2009)
14 Rivera citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2003) (“The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a suﬃcient reason for banning it. . . .First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end.”)
15 See supra note 13
16Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2002)
17 Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)
19City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 83-84 (2004) (per curiam).
21Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 585 (9th Cir. 1997)
22 See Supra note 13, Rivera citing e.g., Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 55 U.S. 7, 21 (2008)
23RONALD GODWIN v. ROGUE VALLEY YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, (RVYCF et al.,) U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 14-35042, AUGUST 10, 2016
24note on Godwin- Diﬀerent appellate circuits have traditionally handled unpublished opinions diﬀerently. Some circuits openly accept them, others do not. In 2006, a new rule was implemented under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 32.1(a) is intended to replace these inconsistent standards with one uniform rule. Under Rule 32.1(a), a court of appeals may not prohibit a party from citing an unpublished opinion of a federal court for its persuasive value or for any other reason. Rule 32.1(a) applies only to unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007.
The post Police in Texas Pressuring Bars to Ban “Motorcycle Colors” appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
Dr. Dulaney is a staunch supporter of the motorcycle community. Cancer has returned for the fourth occasion. The previous attacks have tapped his reserves and urgent care is needed. Without the funds, we fear that he may not get the treatment he desperately requires. Please reach out. Your help is appreciated.
Please Click the following link to donate:
ABATE of Pa. Mercer County Chapter is holding its 39th Annual Kickin’ it in the Stix Poker Run in Transfer, Pa July 7-9, 2017. Although the excerpt on the ABATE of Pa. Mercer County Chapter Facebook page post says “Everyone welcome” the event Flyer makes it clear that “no colors” are allowed.
ABATE is supposed to stand for the ideals of motorcycle rights, including freedom of expression and association. To ban motorcycle club colors at an ABATE event is antithetical to these ideals and runs counter to the historical origins of ABATE and the motorcycle rights movement.
Club members started ABATE in most states. Currently, many patch holders are members of ABATE and regularly attend ABATE functions in many states. Clubs and ABATE are also working together well in many states and even at the federal level.
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF), an organization largely made up of ABATE chapters nationwide, is committed to combating motorcycle profiling and discrimination against motorcycle club colors. In 2015, ABATE of Pa. was advocating for HB 1580, an anti- motorcycle profiling bill that 47 legislators sponsored. How can the current ABATE of Pa. be so far oﬀ the mark relative to their own advocacy in 2015, the rest of the country, the movement’s mission, and constitutional liberties?
The MPP has worked with independents and ABATE members all over America that are passionately dedicated to fighting discrimination. Motorcycle profiling and discrimination is a motorcycling problem, not just a club problem. The MPP is appalled that an ABATE event in any state would ban motorcycle club colors or that a paying membership would not stand up and immediately demand a change in policy.
It’s bad enough having to combat government and law enforcement discrimination. But when an organization that exists to educate and protect the rights of motorcyclists turns their back on motorcycle clubs it is a sign that something is very wrong in Pennsylvania.
The post ABATE of Pennsylvania Turns Their Back on Motorcycle Clubs appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.
Royal Gorge Bridge and Park (RGB&P), located near Cañon City, Colorado, recently adopted an over broad policy of discrimination against any individual wearing motorcycle-related patches or colors. So the National Council of Clubs (NCOC), an organization representing the interests of motorcyclists nationwide, immediately protested the decision in the form of a written complaint to RGB&P management.
Normally, private actors such as RGB&P cannot be sued for 1st Amendment restrictions because there is nothing unconstitutional about private actors discriminating. However, RGB&P leases the land from Canon City exposing the government actor to civil rights liability for the discriminatory acts of the private party.
After receiving the NCOC’s letter of complaint, RGB&P management contacted NCOC attorney Wade Eldridge and informed him that all “no motorcycle club colors” signs had been removed from the park and that the park reversed its policy. The NCOC verified on June 10th that all signs have been removed. NCOC participants, members of motorcycle clubs including 1%’ers, have been granted access to the Park.
This is an important win for the NCOC and the motorcycle club community generally. Many motorcyclists frequent RGB&P and some club members have even had their ashes spread at the park.
Silence is consent. Grassroots political opposition is one of the most effective strategies for tangible change, as demonstrated by the NCOC.
Motorcyclists from Colorado and around the US wearing motorcycle-related patches and colors, including members of the Colorado Confederation of Clubs and National Council of Clubs, regularly visit the Royal Gorge Bridge (RGB&P) and Park in Fremont County, Colorado.
Recently, the RGB&P adopted a broad policy of discrimination against any individual wearing motorcycle- related patches or colors.
RGB&P’s discriminatory actions involve significant state involvement sufficient to establish a claim under 42 USC Section 1983. The nature of RGB&P’s lease with Cañon City and its proximity and dependence on Fremont County roads for access, puts the city and county into such positions of interdependence that they must be recognized as “joint participants” in acts of discrimination.
It is settled law that motorcycle patches and colors are Constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment from acts of government discrimination.
Any restrictions must be narrow and “specific to particular (apparently hypothetical) cases involving rival organizations.” Restrictions on motorcycle club colors are unconstitutional “absent a showing in the record of actual (or realistic threat of) interference or disruption.” 14
There is “no evidence that by merely wearing [1% motorcycle club] “colors,” an individual is “involved in or associated with the alleged violent or criminal activity of other [1% motorcycle club] members. It is a fundamental principle that the government may not impose restrictions on an individual “merely because an individual belong[s] to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.” In fact, the Supreme Court has long “disapproved governmental action . . . denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen’s association with an unpopular organization.” Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 185-86 (1972). 15
2 “National Register Digital Assets”. National Park Service. 09-02-1983
4 see Google Maps; see “What to Expect”. Royal Gorge Bridge and Park. Archived from the original on 01-27-2016
5 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority 365 U.S. 715, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L. Ed. 2d 45, 1961 U.S. 1297.
6 Brief Fact Summary: Burton (Appellant), brought an action under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming he was discriminated against because the Wilmington Parking Authority and the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, Inc. (Appellees), refused to serve him in their restaurant. The Appellant claims there is state action sufficient to bring a claim, as the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, Inc. leased its restaurant space from the City and the restaurant was attached to the Wilmington Parking Authority a City owned parking garage.
7 see also Hammond v. University of Tampa, 344 F.2d 951 (5th Cir.1965) (establishment of university made possible by surplus city buildings turns action of university into state action); Wimbish v. Pinellas County, 342 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1965) (county lease of land for use as a golf course to private tenant who maintained racially discriminatory policies was state action); Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1956) (lease of basement in county courthouse to tenant who practices racial discrimination in serving policies constitutes state action).
8 Hala Ayoub, e State Action Doctrine in State and Federal Courts, 11 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 893 (2017) p. 897. ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol11/iss4/3
9 Supra note 6 p.723-724; Supra note 8 p. 897
10 Supra note 6; Supra note 8 p.897
11 Dexheimer, Eric (04-29-2009). “The Royal Grudge Bridge”. Denver Westword, LLC.
12 Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
13 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
14 Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2002)
15 Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)
The post Big Win – MC’s Stop ‘No Motorcycle Colors’ Policy in Colorado appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.