Big Win – MC’s Stop ‘No Motorcycle Colors’ Policy in Colorado

OFF THE WIRE
http://www.motorcycleprofilingproject.com/big-win-mcs-stop…/
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.

Original NCOC Complaint Sent to Royal Gorge

Royal Gorge Bridge & Park’s “No Motorcycle Patch or Colors” Policy Violates the 1st Amendment

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.

Royal Bridge and Park Openly Discriminates Against Motorcyclists

1. Members of the Colorado Confederation of Clubs and the National Council of Clubs, motorcyclists that wear patches and colors, have a history of meeting and assembling at Royal Gorge Bridge and Park (RGB&P), located near Cañon City in Fremont County, Colorado, to communicate thoughts and discuss public

2. RGB&P recently adopted a “No Motorcycle Patches or Colors Allowed on Premises” policy which is prominently displayed on signs posted at the

Cañon City Owns and Leases Property to Royal Gorge Bridge and Park

3. The 360-acre RGB&P is owned by Cañon City and leased to Royal Gorge Company of Colorado with yearly payments based on a percentage of park sales. ¹

4. The official government registration papers indicate that Cañon City became the owner of the bridge and incline railway during the 1940s, independent of owning the land which they lease to the Royal Gorge Company.²

5. The bridge and the incline railway were listed in the National Register of Historic Places on September 2, ³

6. The road leading to and across the bridge from Route 50 is designated as Fremont County Road 3A and begins about 10 mi (16 km) west of Cañon The road leads to the bridge from U.S. Route 50, continues on the south side of the gorge, and eventually re-connects with Route 50. ⁴

Cañon City’s Lease Agreement Creates Significant State Involvement In RGB&P’s Discriminatory Acts

7. Burton Wilmington Parking Authority  ^5,6,7,  the  controlling  on-point  Supreme  Court precedent, concludes that there is significant state involvement to permit an action under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution when a state leases public property to a private actor who then discriminates.

8. The very nature of a lease establishes a symbiotic relationship between parties that is absent when persons independently own property.⁸In Burton, the basis for the “interdependence” between the state and the private entity was rooted in the state lease to the private The property was publicly owned and dedicated to “public use;” and patrons used public infrastructure to access the property. ⁹

9. A lease resulting in physical and financial benefits to the state creates a symbiotic and interdependent relationship. “[T]he State has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence. . . that it must be recognized as a joint participant” in the discrimination. ¹⁰

10. The lease agreement with RGB&P financially benefits Cañon In 1956, the Royal Gorge Bridge Company agreed to pay the city a percentage of its revenue instead of a yearly fee for the lease. The percentage arrangement has proven very beneficial to Cañon City allowing it to lower property taxes significantly, achieving the lowest property tax rate in Colorado. ¹¹

11. Access to RGB&P, including crossing the bridge, is 100% dependent on Fremont County Road 3A. This creates an interdependent relationship between RGB&P and Fremont

Parks and Streets are Considered Public Property for the Purposes of 1st Amendment Analysis

12. Regardless of ownership, “[w]herever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” ¹²

RGB&P’s Policy Is Unconstitutional – Motorcycle Colors are Protected from State Discrimination By the 1st Amendment.

13. Cohen California establishes that individuals have the 1st Amendment right to wear clothing which displays writing or designs in public places. ¹³ The United States Supreme Court has long recognized and protected the right of an individual to freedom of association. Thus, a person’s right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice, is constitutionally protected.

14. In Sammartano First Judicial District Court (2002), the court applied Cohen specifically to motorcycle club colors. 10 individuals wearing motorcycle colors, including the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, were denied access to a courthouse in Carson City, Nevada. They refused to remove their colors and were arrested for trespassing. The state asserted motorcycle club colors were gang attire and could cause a potential threat of violence and intimidation. The 9th Circuit rejected the gang argument, concluding generalizations were insufficient, explaining that “a total ban on this expressive activity…is “an unreasonable means” of preserving a safe environment.“

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

15. RGB&P’s policy represents a total ban on expressive conduct and is not based on a reasonable threat. The policy is far too broad to be considered reasonable. The policy is not specific to particular organizations or particular threats. The over-reaching policy encompasses all people wearing “motorcycle patches and colors” and is therefore an unreasonable means of achieving a safe environment under the 1st

16. Generalizations and past actions of others are insufficient policy justifications. Even a more narrow policy applying only to 1% motorcycle clubs would be too general. Motorcycle clubs, including those clubs labeled organized or criminal gangs by some authorities, are protected associations. Restrictions solely based on expressing those associations violate the 1st

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

17. To permit restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a 1% 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. ¹⁶

¹ http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/news/canoncity-local-news/ci_24210571/royal-gorge-bridge-park-gives-1-06m- lease
² “National Register Digital Assets”. National Park Service. 09-02-1983
³ id
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)

WRONG

AAA Is Fighting to Stop Legal Marijuana

OFF THE WIRE
By:Kyle Jaeger

"AAA is such a trusted brand and could be the messenger to discourage impaired driving," Strekal said. "But, instead, they're choosing alienate at least 60 percent of the population, and they're doing it through a process of fear-mongering with discredited, reefer madness era talking points."
via ATTN:
Send a message to AAA now: http://act.norml.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/…

If you're one of the 55 million members of the American Automobile Association (AAA), you might be surprised to learn that the organization has recently thrown itself into the fight over marijuana reform, opposing efforts to loosen marijuana laws in several states.
According to a report from Leafly, AAA's anti-legalization lobbying efforts are concentrated on the East Coast, targeting lawmakers in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The group is reportedly pushing the idea that legalization will drive up traffic-related fatalities due to more impaired drivers being on the road.
But critics say the evidence AAA cites in support of this claim misrepresents its own research

"They're grossly distorting their own data that they've taken," which now factors in "drug testing for marijuana in highway traffic fatality incidents when, prior to legalization, that was not a normally tracked data point," Justin Strekal, political director of the marijuana reform group NORML, told ATTN:.

"What AAA failed to mention—in all of these states where they had their representatives lobbying against legalization bills and crying that the highways of Colorado run red with blood—[is] that overall highway traffic fatalities have fallen in the state during the process of legalization, implementation, and growth of the legal market," Strekal said. "It's absolutely disingenuous the way that they're presenting their information."

    AAA is pushing #propaganda to defeat #marijuana legalization. Tell #AAA that the days of ‘reefer madness’ are over! https://t.co/y8Ay0iRmp9
    — NORML (@NORML) July 21, 2017

Recent studies have presented conflicting accounts of the effects of legalizing for medical or recreational use on traffic incidents.

As Leafly pointed out, two studies exploring the issue, released just this week, came to different conclusions: the first, from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, determined that collision claims were 3 percent higher in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington compared to neighboring, non-legal states; the second, published in the American Journal of Public Health, concluded that changes in traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington from 2009 to 2015 were no different than changes in non-legal states.

There are also two other studies, one from 2013 and another from 2016, that show significant declines in traffic fatalities in states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Traffic fatalities fell anywhere from 8 to 11 percent post-legalization, according to the studies.

"And yet," Leafly reported, "there has been no call from any AAA officials to expand the legalization of medical marijuana, based on that correlation (which, remember, is not the same as causation) between medical marijuana legalization and a drop in fatalities."

weed
AP/Robert F. Bukaty - apimages.com

That's something Strekal takes issue with as well. He said that NORML and AAA are ultimately on the same page when it comes to traffic safety and marijuana policy, and that NORML would "absolutely love" if AAA became a "good faith partner" to advocate against impaired driving.

"NORML is in a position to advocate for the reform of marijuana laws, while AAA is such a trusted brand and could be the messenger to discourage impaired driving," Strekal said. "But, instead, they're choosing alienate at least 60 percent of the population, and they're doing it through a process of fear-mongering with discredited, reefer madness era talking points."

AAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Share your opinion
Do you support federal marijuana legalization?

Australia - Vote For Cannon

OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com

A contractor, former Hells Angels Motorcycle Club patch holder and Muay Thai champion named Scott “The Cannon” Bannon (above) is running to represent a district south of Brisbane, Queensland Australia in the Australian state’s Legislative Assembly.

Queensland has been trying to outlaw membership in motorcycle clubs since 2013. That year, the state’s government, with the assistance of the American Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Forearms and Explosives, passed the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act, or the VLAD Law. Among other things, the law made added 15 to 25 years to the sentence of anyone who was an “associate” of a motorcycle club, forbid motorcycle club patches in bars and forbid three or more club associates from congregating in public. Last year, Australian judge Alan Wilson ruled the law was “excessively harsh.”

Australia has no Bill of Rights. Politicians in Queensland have struggled to replace the VLAD Law. Earlier this month Tim Mander, a law and order member of the Queensland Parliament, bragged, “The results of our laws were the gangs disbanded, crime reduced and Queensland was a safer place to live, work and raise a family.”

One Nation Party

Bannon was selected to run by a conservative political party called the One Nation Party. The party is widely described as “right wing.” “populist,” “nationalist” and “anti-immigrant.” It was founded by a politician named Pauline Hanson in 1997. Hanson has responded to objections about her party’s platform by saying “criticism is not racism.” In a recent election, the party earned about four percent of the vote throughout Australia and about nine percent of the vote in Queensland.

The party has endorsed 51 candidates for the next election. No date has been set for the election, which must be held on a Saturday between now and New Year’s Eve.

A One Nation Party leader named Steven Lance “Steve” Dickson called Bannon “one of those top blokes.”

He called Bannon a “motorbike enthusiast” and “a family man” who has “”never been charged with anything.”

“The guy’s as straight as the days come,” Dickson said.

OFF THE WIRE
The Motorcycle Profiling Project is issuing this Travel Advisory to all members and associates of motorcycle clubs traveling in or to the state of Texas.

MC Members Being Arrested For Unlawful Carry Without Cause

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 3 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)