Gang Law Or Bill Flaw? A Closer Look At The H.R. 336 Controversy

Disclaimer: Most information in this article is a result of a public survey created on Monday, the 6th of May about the bill to gauge public opinion. Public polls offer a platform for different voices to be heard, and can be a great method of gaining insight into public opinion. This article is a collation of poll answers, direct responses to questions and other information gathering. All attempts to remain unbiased were made during writing. 

Part of the role of state representatives is to draft bills and amendments intended to better the state. Although some of these are controversial in various ways, and although some people within the state can take issue with them, H.R. 336 seems to be a bill universally condemned by the citizens of this great state.

The short title of the bill reads, ‘A bill to introduce new legislation regarding Gang Violence in San Andreas.’, which gives little away regarding the bill’s true contents. H.R. 336 states that ‘The purpose of this bill is to levy harsher punishment against members of violent gangs who commit crimes against others in San Andreas.’ On the face of it, it’s an agreeable bill. The citizens of San Andreas would be hard-pressed to find fault with a bill that more harshly criminalizes gang violence, especially considering the prevalence of such activity on our streets. However, once past the short summaries of the bill, H.R. 336 moves into definitions, with these being the main points of contention from the public. 

Defining Crime

The definition, in H.R. 336, of a Criminal Organization reads:

 ‘A group of two or more individuals who engage in criminal activities with other individuals who share common identifying features, including but not limited to: clothing style, clothing color, hand symbols, family names, or group names. A Criminal Organization may also be identified by sharing a common location that 3 or more members of the organization have been documented at on a regular basis.’

H.R. 336 – The Gang Related Violence Act of 2024

Answers to the public poll showed that a majority of respondents disagreed with this definition, with many arguing that it is too broad to be readily applicable within San Andreas, as can be seen in the graph below.

The definition, in H.R. 336, of a Member of a Criminal Organization reads:

 ‘An individual who has engaged in criminal activities documented via Arrest Records (excluding Not Guilty) with other individuals who share common identifying features, including but not limited to: clothing style, clothing color, hand symbols, family names, or group names, AND/OR who share a common location that 3 or more members of the organization have been seen at on a regular basis.’

H.R. 336 – The Gang Related Violence Act of 2024

Responses to the poll showed this definition was similarly disagreed with, with the majority disagreeing with the definition, as seen in the graph below.

Public Opinion

The poll also suggested that 48.5% of respondents had been wrongly accused of being a gang member, and the public outcry shows that this number may grow with the signing of this bill into law. Citizens of the State of San Andreas, regardless of the political divide, seem to be almost wholly against this bill, as can be seen in their responses to the poll.

‘At the moment the way HR 336 is written makes it to easy label the wrong people as part of a criminal organisation. It also makes it more or less impossible members of a Criminal Organisation to seek legal employment while staying in contact with their friends. As such it makes the process of a criminal leaving that live style that much harder.’At the moment the way HR 336 is written makes it to easy label the wrong people as part of a criminal organisation. It also makes it more or less impossible members of a Criminal Organisation to seek legal employment while staying in contact with their friends. As such it makes the process of a criminal leaving that live style that much harder.

A side effect that might also be caused by this would be the labelling of different legal businesses as supporting criminal activities simply because multiple people of the same Criminal group work there.
Which might cause them to lose their business license or have the other employees labelled as such as well.’

H.R. 336 Survey – anonymous respondent

‘This Bill really needs some work, it’s very tone deaf to the actual reality of the city. This could easily ruin peoples lives when they have no gang affiliation. The definition of gang in this legislation is very dangerous; if I’m understanding this right it gives the police overreaching power to deem two or more people as a gang along with them using family relation as evidence. Not okay.’

H.R. 336 Survey – anonymous respondent

The bill also raised concerns for fashion designers, with one stating,

‘As a clothing designer with a couple brands, it’s a little worrying to have someone in our government find something as simple as clothing colours and styles enough to justify people as potential gang members. We have plenty of high quality clothing brands within this state that are heavily worn on the regular. Whether it’s Sally’s, CLAW, Schmuck, Mint, Scourge, Fish Chad Stores, Grayson, Eye Candy, Bigness, Wayland, Heat, etc; any handful of fans of any of brands like these are going to casually be identified as gang members? Gonna have to be a hard no from me dawg. I think the complete disagreement with it en-masse from far and wide across the state on Y makes it pretty clear what the people want.’

H.R. 336 Survey – anonymous respondent

The mass outcry of dissent from the citizens of San Andreas highlights the importance of discussing bills outside of the legislature and even outside government departments. Although some members of the public will disagree with bills such as H.R. 336 purely because, in the words of one respondent,

‘As a crime enjoyer, i would not like to see this bill passed obviously. I feel like if you’re gonna be arrested for something that you get a shitload of charges thrown at you and spend more and more time in jail.’

H.R. 336 survey – anonymous respondent

This does not mean that the entire populace would disagree because they enjoy committing crimes. We can all see the effects of gang violence within San Andreas, and the most common concern appears to be over definitions than the bill itself. There are, however, some who are in agreement with the bill and what it aims to achieve.

‘People are blowing this bill out of proportion and think they understand, when they clearly have never read law and have zero clue how to interpret the law. The Judiciary would never apply this law how people are assuming it is to be applied, and it’s not written like that either. However, I don’t think Joanna Poole and her league of merry “pick me”s will pass the bill.’

H.R. 336 survey – anonymous respondent

‘This is a much needed bill and you don’t have a constitutional right to be in a gang. Stop doing crime and stop defending your criminal friends. Yeeter users don’t know shit, and their constant crying because they’re suffering consequences for their criminal actions is hilarious. The cops aren’t corrupt, the whiners on yeeter just don’t understand the law, or are just bad faith and want to get away with crime. It’s amazing how people spend more time complaining about the cop’s response to criminals, rather than the extreme actions those criminals take in the first place. God forbid they try to actually do something about gangs shooting each other in the streets every other hour.’

H.R. 336 survey – anonymous respondent

Evans’ Response

On Monday, 9th of May, I reached out to Rep. Evans for a comment on the bill itself and for his opinions on the comments on Y. This is what he said,

‘The idea behind the bill is to create more specific guidelines for law enforcement to help with their investigations and keeping a database of gang members.

The other purpose is for harsher punishment which in turn would hopefully cause Violent Gang Members to think about the possible punishment of their actions before they go out and commit a Violent Crime against someone or numerous other people.

I do believe and hope that this bill will make a positive impact on the community and make things a bit safer for those who find themselves having Violent acts committed against them by Violent Gangs.

I have heard of some of the events unfolding on Y and I’d encourage anyone who has problems with the bill to direct themselves to my email inbox.’

Whilst expressing opinions publicly on a platform such as Y is a useful democratic tool and one capable of causing enough outcry to change legislation before it is signed into law, there is another approach. Directly emailing Rep. Evans with your concerns and suggestions and whether you approve or disapprove of the bill is the most efficient way of expressing yourselves. I encourage you all to do this more; if you are unhappy with the legislature, tell them. It can be difficult to cater to the public, especially if you do not know they are unhappy.

Posts on Y can be lost, but emails are much harder to ignore, especially if they are sent en masse.

More Opinions

‘Lol’

Donald OHagen – Hunt & OHagen LLP

‘Stupidest bill i’ve had to read in quite a while.’

H.R. 336 survey – anonymous respondent

‘I think its a sticky wicket because if it’s come about to be able to classify criminals that come in as apart of a gang and there for give them more time/fines, A, from what we see a lot on yeeter I don’t think that’s going to deter many of them as they’ll still keep doing what they want to. It does however open up the gate to police slapping it on people due to sharing colours, clothing or even for example hanging out with friends in a area that perhaps other criminals hang out in, are they then to be branded a criminal by association?’

H.R. 336 survey – anonymous respondent

‘To further discredit the concern with this definition, it specifically says “individual who has engaged in criminal activities […] with other individuals” so you having one charge and hanging out with Weazel employees wearing similar clothing doesn’t make you a criminal organization. The other part about them considering uniforms or friends wearing the same style of shirt still applies too.

The bill also says ‘A Member of a Criminal Organization must be identified as such through a marker on the Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) available to Federal and Local Law Enforcement.‘ My question is, does this mean gang members can’t be charged with the elevated penalties until they’ve been marked with an Organized Crime marker on the MDT? Or does wearing the same color, clothing style, etc when they’re all caught committing a crime count by itself.

John Corranado – Corranado Holdings America

Final Thoughts

So, the public is divided over the definitions used in the bill. Evans updated the bill, but rather than touching on the contentious parts, he edited the introductory paragraph, which lists contributors. All that’s left is the question of whether the bill will pass as is or whether it will face reworking. Or, perhaps we will see yet more unprecedented intervention by the President.

What do you think about H.R. 336? Let us know in the comments below. And let your state representatives know, too!