Under a number of game laws, it is a penal offense to kill or take certain types of game in certain seasons of the year or without a license. A hunter is required to exhibit a license when properly called on to do so, and it constitutes a legal violation if the person cannot do so. In a situation where an individual has lawfully obtained possession of game—enclosing and caring for them as DOMESTIC animals—the person can kill one or more of them if necessary for care and management or for humane purposes. In addition, an individual might be justified in killing game in violation of the law if it were necessary for the protection of persons or property. It sometimes constitutes an offense to export game beyond the limits of the nation or state in which it was killed or captured, to ship it for sale in a certain manner, or to absent certain information upon the package. The United States has entered into treaties with other countries, including Great Britain and Mexico, for the protection and preservation of migratory birds and game animals. It constitutes an offense to violate statutes that were enacted to implement such treaties. For example, a regulatory statute might limit the number of birds that can be killed by any individual each day, and it would be an offense to exceed such limit. The FEDERAL government, subject to the CONSENT of the state, can establish a game refuge for the protection of game and migratory birds and proscribe all hunting in the vicinity. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is administered by the INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, to conserve and preserve fish and game in wildlife refuges and game ranges. CROSS REFERENCES Endangered Species Act; Fish and Fishing. GAMING Gaming is the act or practice of gambling. It is an agreement between two or more individuals to play collectively at a game of chance for a stake or wager, which will become the property of the winner and to which all involved make a contribution. Since the early 1990s, GAMING laws have been in a constant state of flux. Regulation of gaming is generally reserved to the states, but the U.S. Congress became involved in it in 1988 with the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Gaming Act) (Pub. Law. No. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467 [25 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq.][Oct. 17, 1988]), which brought tribal gaming under the regulation of state and FEDERAL governments. Before the 1990s most gaming was illegal in a majority of states. Since the passage of the Gaming Act, many state legislatures have approved gaming in a variety of forms. Some states still outlaw all but charitable gambling, but most have expanded their definition of legal gaming operations to promote economic development. The LEGAL HISTORY of gambling in the United States is marked by dramatic swings between PROHIBITION and popularity. In colonial times, games of chance were generally illegal except for state and private lotteries. Other gaming was considered a sin and not fit for discussion in polite society. In the early nineteenth century, the popular belief changed from seeing gaming as a sin to seeing it as a vice. Gamblers were no longer considered fallen in the eyes of God but were now seen as simply victims of their own weaknesses. Gaming came under renewed attack during the presidency of ANDREW JACKSON (1829–1837). Part of the so-called Jacksonian morality of the period revived the view of gambling as sinful. By 1862, gaming was illegal in all states except Missouri and Kentucky, both of which retained state lotteries. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Hunting Participation in 2006 Participants (in millions) Big game Small game Migratory birds Other animals 024681012 4.8 2.3 1.1 SOURCE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006 Nationa l Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, October 2007. 10.7 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 28 GAMING After the Civil War, legal gaming experi- enced a brief renaissance, only to fall out of favor again in the 1890s. At this point, it was outlawed even in the western territories, where card games such as poker and blackjack had become a regular DIVERSION in frontier life. By 1910, the United States was again virtually free of legalized gaming. Only Maryland and Kentucky allowed gambling, in the sole form of horse race betting. In 1931 Nevada re-legalized casino gaming. Many states followed this lead in the 1930s by legalizing pari-mutuel betting, wherein all bets are pooled and then paid, less a management fee, to the holders of winning tickets. In 1963 New Hampshire formed the first STATE LOTTERY since the 1910s. By the 1990s gaming was the largest and fastest growing segment of the U.S. entertainment industry. In 1992, for example, U.S. citizens spent approximately four times more on gaming than on movies. Gaming is still illegal in some states, but most states have at least one form of legal gambling, most com- monly a state-run lottery. In fact, instead of prohibiting gaming, many states now actively promote it by sponsoring lotteries and other games of chance. Gaming laws vary from state to state. Idaho, for example, declares that “gambling is contrary to public policy and is strictly prohibited except for” pari-mutuel betting, bingo and raffle games for charity, and a state lottery (Idaho Const. art. III, § 20). Like lotteries in other states, the purpose of the one in Idaho is to generate revenue for the state. The lottery is run by the Idaho State Lottery Commission, which over- sees all aspects of the game, including expenses and advertising. As of 2009, 43 states permit lotteries. In addition to lotte ries, some states with direct access to major river syste ms or lakes expanded their venues for gaming to include riverboats. On July 1, 1989, Iowa became the first state to authorize its Racing and Gaming Commission to grant a license to qualified organizations for the purpose of conducting gambling games on excursion boats in counties where referendums have been approved. Illinois quickly followed Iowa with its Riverboat Gambling Act (230 ILCS 10), which went into effect on February 7, 1990. Five more states passed legislation permi- tting licensing for riverboat casinos: Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. Some riverboat gambling vessels are perma- nently docked while others e mbark on brief cruises and return to their docks after several hours of gaming, dining, and entertainment for passengers. Alabama is one of the few states that prohibit all gambling except for charitable gaming. Alabama maintains no state lottery and punishes gambling through criminal statutes. Under the Code of Alabama, sections 13A-12-24 and 13A-12-25 (1975), the possession of gambling records is a class A misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of not more than one year in JAIL or a $2,000 fine, or both. Nevada is the most permissive state for gambling. Its public policy of gaming holds that “[t]he gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the state and the GENERAL WELFARE of the inhabitants” (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.0129). Nevada statutes allow the broadest range of gaming activities, including pari-mutuel betting, betting on sports competitions and other events, and the full panoply of casino games. Gambling is heavily regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission, and a wide range of criminal statutes are designed to ensure cooperation with the regulations of the commission. Gaming LOTTERY SALES BY GAME, IN 2007 Sales (in billions of dollars) Game I ns t a n t Lo t to Th r e e- or fou r -d i g it O th er a SOURCE: TLF Publications, Inc., 2008 World Lottery Almanac. 0 30 25 20 10 15 5 $29.7 $10.0 $9.1 $3.6 a Includes break-open tickets, spiel, Keno, video lottery, etc. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION GAMING 29 New Jersey is another active promoter of gaming. In 1976, New Jersey voters passed a REFERENDUM approving casino gaming, and that decision was codified in the Casino Control Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12-1 et seq.). Gaming is limited to Atlantic City, and it does not include betting on sports events other than horse and dog races. However, like Nevada, New Jersey offers the full array of casino games. The Gaming Act divides all gambling into three classes. Class I includes all traditional Indian games performed as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebra- tions. Class II is limited to bingo, pull tabs, and card games not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the state. Class III encompasses all other forms of gambling, such as slot machines, poker, blackjack, dice games, off-track betting (where bets may be placed by persons not at the race track) and pari-mutuel betting on horses and dogs, and lotteries. An Indian tribe may operate a class I game without restrictions. It may offer class II games with the oversight of the National Indian Gaming Commission, and class III games only if it reaches an agreement with the state in which it resides. The Gaming Act provides that Native American tribes may operate high-stakes casi- nos only if they reach an agreement with the state in which they reside. Under the act, a state is required to enter into GOOD FAITH negotiations with a federally recognized tribe to allow class III gaming that was legal in the state before the negotiations began. For exam- ple, if a state has legalized blackjack b ut not poker, blackjack is available for negotiations but not poker. Furthermore, when a state approves a new f orm of gambling, the state must make the new game available in negotia- tions with native tribes. Native American groups have criticized the Gaming Act as interferin g with tribal SOVER- EIGNTY . Indeed, a primary purpose of the act was to reconcile state interests in gaming with thoseofthetribe.Beforetheact,someNative American tribes ran sizable gambling opera- tions on their land without regulation by the federal or state governments. Nevertheless, gaming has become a major source of income for many Native American tribes. As of 2009, there are approximately 400 Native Americ an gaming establishments operated by about 220 federally recognized tribes. The Gaming Act has also created opposition in some states that seeks to minimize gambling within their BOUNDARIES. Maine, for example, refused to give the Passamaquoddy tribe a license to conduct class III gaming operations on tribal land in Calais, near the Canadian border. The tribe sued the state for the right to conduct the high- stakes gaming. However, several years earlier, Maine had given land to the tribe in exchange for the tribe’s agreement to submit to state JURISDIC- TION .InPassamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine (75 F. 3 d 784 [1st Cir. 1996]), the First CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals ruled against the tribe. The court noted that Congress had been aware of Maine’s agreement with the tribe and that Congress could have added to the Gaming Act, but chose not to, language making the act applicable to the state of Maine. According to the court, the gaming statute did not erase the 1980 agreement between the tribe and the state, and Maine had the right to refuse the tribe’srequest. FURTHER READINGS American Gaming Association. Available online at www. americangaming.org (accessed July 26, 2003). Campion, Kristen M. 1995. “Riverboats: Floating Our Way to a Brighter Fiscal Future?” Seton Hall Legislative Journal 19. Rose, I. Nelson. 1993. “Gambling and the Law—Update 1993.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 15. CROSS REFERENCES Native American Rights; State Lottery. Patrons of this South Dakota casino can play blackjack and slot machines. Regulation of gaming is generally reserved to the states. DEADWOOD GULCH RESORT AND CASINO. DEADWOOD, SOUTH DAKOTA. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 30 GAMING v GANDHI, MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND Widely known as Mahatma or “Great Soul”, MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI is considered one of history ’s great political pacifists. He is remembered nearly as much for his austere persona (frail, bespectacled, clad only in a draped loincloth) as his political achievements. Gandhi played a major role in leading India to INDEPENDENCE from British rule, in 1947, follow- ing WORLD WAR II. The quintessential nonviolent activist, Gandhi dedicated his life to political and social reform. His teachings and example were to later influence such leaders as MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr. and Nelson Mandela, who also utilized passive resistance and conversion rather than confron- tation to bring about social change. Gandhi’s signature marks were what he called Satyagraha (the force of truth and love) and the ancient Hindu ideal of Ahisma, or nonviolence toward all living things. Gandhi was born in western India in 1869. Just 11 years earlier (in 1858), Britain had declared India a loyal colony. The young Gandhi completed a British-style high school education and was greatly impressed with British manners, genteel culture, and Christian beliefs. He aspired to become a BARRISTER at law, but was proh ibited from doing so by the local head of his Hindu caste in Bombay. His first act of public defiance was his decision to assume the role of an “ ou tcaste” and leave for London to study law. While studying in England, Gandhi first read (and was inspired by) the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu religious poem. The story of the Sermon on the Mount in the Christian New Testament stirred in him an interest in passive resistance, and he also became intrigued with the ethical basis of vegetarianism after befriending a few enthusiasts at a local restaurant. He would later use dietary fasting as a means to draw attention to social causes. But it was an incident in 1893 that put into motion Gandhi’s focused role in history. While on a legal assignment in South Africa, he was traveling on a train near Johannesburg when he was ordered to move from his first-class compartment to the “colored ” car in the rear of the train. He refused. At the next station, he was thrown from the train and spent the night at the station. The experience triggered his lifelong dedication to CIVIL RIGHTS and to the improvement of the lives of those with little political voice. By 1906 he had taken on his first major political battle, confronting the South African government’s move to fingerprint all Indians with publicized passive resistance. His efforts failed to provoke legal change, but he gained a wider following and influence. Returning to India in 1915, Gandhi began a succession of political campaigns for indepen- dence in his homeland. He orchestrated wide- spread boycotts of British goods and services, and promoted peaceful noncooperation and nonviolent strikes. He is widely remembered for his 1930 defiance of the British law forbid- ding Indians to make their own salt. With 78 followers, he started on a march to the sea. Soon more than 60,000 supporters were arrested and jailed, but Britain was forced to negotiate with the gentle and powerful little man. Gandhi himself was arrested several times by the British, who considered him a troublemaker, and all total, spent about seven years of his life in JAIL. Although his unrelenting efforts played a major role in India’sindependencein1947,the victory was bittersweet for Gandhi. Britain announced not only the independence of India, but also the creation of the new Muslim state of Pakistan.Withallhis power and influence,Gandhi Mohandas Gandhi. TIME LIFE PICTURES/ GETTY IMAGES AN UNJUST LAW IS ITSELF A SPECIES OF VIOLENCE .ARREST FOR ITS BREACH IS MORE SO . —MOHANDAS GANDHI GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GANDHI, MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND 31 could not undo the years of hatred between the Hindus and Muslims. On January 30, 1948, while arriving for evening prayers, he was gunned down by a Hindu fanatic who blamed the formation of Pakistan on Gandhi’s tolerance for Muslims. Gandhi was 78 at his death. The legacy of Ghandi, and his call for “conversion, not coercion,” spread worldwide. Passive resistance, peace marches, sitdown strikes, and silent noncooperation became com- mon means of nonviolent activism through much of the latter twentieth century, especially influencing demonstrators during the civil rights and VIETNAM WAR eras. Governmental entities accustomed to punishing violent protesters were forced to revamp their response to demonstra- tions in which the only violence was coming from police or guards. The U.S. Supreme Court was inundated with cases clarifying the limita- tions on FIRST AMENDMENT rights of speech and association. To this day, passive resistance remains a principal form of protestation for those seeking attention for their cause(s). FURTHER READINGS Hay, Stephen. 1989. “The Making of a Late-Victorian Hindu: M. K. Gandhi in London, 1888–1891.” Victori- an Studies (autumn). McGeary, Johanna. 1999. “Mohandas Gandhi.” Time (December 31). Sudo, Phil. 1997. “The Legacy of Gandhi.” Scholastic Update (April 11). GANGS A gang is sometimes difficult to define, especially in legal terms. Although gangs typically involve a congregation of individuals, primarily young males, certainly not all congregations or informal gather- ings of young individuals constitute gangs. Defini- tions of gangs or street gangs vary among the laws governing them. Alabama law, for example, defines a “streetgang” as, “[A]ny combination, confedera- tion, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or similar arrangement in law or in fact, of three or more persons that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity.” Ala. Code § 13A-6-26 (2002). The rise in gang violence since the 1980s caused lawmakers to seek a variety of methods to curb the formation and activities of these GANGS. According to statistics from the National Youth Gang Center, more than 24,500 gangs, consisting of more than 770,000 members, exist in about 3,330 cities in the United States. Congress spends as much as $20 billion per year in health care costs treating victims of gunshot wounds, and many of the incidents involving guns also involve street and other types of gangs. Congress, state legislatures, and municipal governments have responded to the growing tide of gangs by considering a variety of bills addressing gang violence. Although efforts at the FEDERAL level have largely been unsuccessful, many states and municipalities have enacted laws designed to deter gang-related violence. Several of these statutes and ordinances have been fashioned as anti-loitering statutes, which often raise FIRST AMENDMENT concerns. The U.S. Sup- reme Court in 1999 made it more difficult for municipalities to draft gang loitering ordinances ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Demographic Profile of U.S. Youth Gang Members, in 2004 a Sex Race Age Female 6% SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Male 94% Hispanic 49% White 8% Other 1% Black 37% Asian 5% a 760,000 total youth gang members. Juveniles (under 18) 41% Young adults (18 or older) 59% GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 32 GANGS when it found that an ordinance such as this in the city of Chicago was unconstitutional. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1999). Background Activities of gangs predate the formation of the United States, though the common perception of these gangs has changed over time. The level of violence among street gangs is a relatively new phenomenon. Because different organiza- tions and individuals define the term gang differently, accurate statistics are often difficult to compile. Many of the crimes committed by gangs are violent crimes, including HOMICIDE. Moreover, many of the gang members are juveniles or young adults. According to the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey, 90 percent of gang members are male. Seventy-one percent of these members are between the ages of 15 and 24, and 16 percent are age 14 or under. About 79 percent of the gang members, according to this survey, are Hispanic or black, while only 14 percent are white. Because of the large discrepancy in the number of minorities, some commentators have suggested that young minority males are unfairly stereotyped, leading to racial profiling of groups consisting of these young minority males. Until the late 1980s, public and law enforcement agencies perceived gangs as racially and ethnically segregated, loosely organized fighting groups. However, a 1988 study of two major Los Angeles gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, showed that thes e gangs had become highly organized and entrepreneurial. These gangs had begun to engage in drug trafficking and had expanded their operations to multiple cities and states. As the gangs’ interest in drug trade increased, so too did the level of violence perpetrated by their members. Between 1984 and 1993, the number of homicides committed by juveniles increased by 169 percent, repre- senting a sharp increase in the number of gang- related crimes. Gang membership also increased markedly during this time. Between 1989 and 1995, the number of students reporting a gang presence at their school increased from 15 to 28 percent. In response to the concerns caused by gang violence, several states and cities enacted statutes and ordinances designed to address street crime. In 1988 California enacted the Street TERRORISM Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP Act), Cal. Pen. Code §§ 186.20 33 (2001). Since that time, at least 28 other states have enacted similar legislation. Cities with traditional gang strongholds, such as Chicago and Los Angeles, enacted a series of ordinances that enabled law enforcement to take a more proactive approach in fighting street gangs in those cities. Boston, which experienced the most num- ber of homicides in its history in 1990 DUE in large part to gang violence, initiated a community-based strategy designed to target at-risk youth before they considered joining a gang. It also developed strategies for youth INTERVENTION and enforcement of GUN CONTROL laws. Due to this initiative, youth homicides dropped 80 percent from 1990 to 1995. Similarly, Salinas, California, experien ced a 200 percent increase in the total number of homicides from 1984 to 1994. After receiving federal funding, the city improved it anti-gang task force and developed a series of additional programs. As a result of these programs, gang related assaults decreased by 23 percent, and the homicide rate fell by 62 percent. Federal Law In his 1997 state of the union address, President BILL CLINTON requested that Congress “mount a full-scale ASSAULT on juvenile crime, with legislation that declares war on gangs,” includ- ing more prosecutions and tougher penalties. The same year, Congress considered two bills under the title Anti-Gang Youth Violence Act of 1997 (S. 362, H.R. 810, 105th Cong.). Despite initial support for this legislation, which would have provided $200 million in funding for local programs, neither bill passed through its respective committee. Although Congress has been unable to enact comprehensive anti-gang legislation, other fed- eral law and actions of federal authorities have been used in the effort to curb gang violence. Federal prosecutors have relied upon the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza- tions (RICO) statute to prosecute gang mem- bers. In the 1990s the number of RICO prosecutions against gang members more than doubled. Federal authorities have also assisted local law enforcement through a variety of funding programs. For example, in February 2003, the Los Angeles City/County Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR) GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GANGS 33 anti-gang program received $2.5 million in federal funding for its efforts in reducing gang- related violence. State Law State legislatures have approached the problems related to gang violence through the enactment of a number of different statutes. Due to rulings by the courts within the various states, some legislatures are more restricted than others in enacting these types of legislation because of potential violations of state CONSTITUTIONAL provisions. Gang Participation A number of states pro- scribe participation in criminal street gangs, though these statutes vary from state to state. In Georgia, for instance, it is unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with a criminal street gang to conduct or participate [in such a gang] through a pattern of criminal gang activity.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-15-4 (1998). Likewise, in Texas, a person commits an offense “if, with an INTENT to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination of or in the profits of a combination of or as a member of a street gang, he commits or conspires to commit” one of several crimes, including violent crimes or distribution of controlled substances. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 71.02 (Vernon 1997). Gang Recruitment Several states make it a crime for a person to recruit another to join a criminal gang. In Florida, an individual “who intentionally causes, encourages, solicits, or recruits another person to join a criminal street gang that requires as a condition of membership or continued membership the commission of any crime” commits a THIRD DEGREE FELONY. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 874.05 (1999). In Kentucky an individual who solicits or entices another person to join a criminal gang is GUILTY of the crime of criminal gang recruitment. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 506.140 (2000). Do Anti-gang Laws Violate the Constitution? T he national aversion to GANGS has sparked d ebate over FIRST A MEND- MENT rights of gang members versus citizens’ safety at home and o n the streets. Anti-gang injunctions and the enactment of anti-gang l oitering ordi- nances are the two most prominent legal WEAPONS currently employed against gangs. Critics of these efforts, most notably the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), contend that these initiatives violate the First Amend- ment’s right of free association. Defen- ders of anti-gang initiatives reply that society’s rights to pea ce and qui et and to be free from harm outweigh the gang members’ First Amendment associ- ational rights. Critics reject the idea that public safety allows the gov ernment to tell citizens they may not associate with each other. As long as citizens are not commit ting a crime, the sta te cannot tell them not to stand on a street corner together or walk down the stre et. The Supreme Court has recognized that freedom of association is on par with FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS . The Court has allowed municipali- ties to require permits for parades, sound trucks, and demonstrations, in the inter- est of public order. However, the courts have been careful not to abridge the right of unpopular assemblies or protests. In 1977 the largely Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois, enacted three ordinances designed to prevent a march through the city by the American Nazi Party. The ACLU sued the city, and a FEDERAL court ruled that Skokie had violated the First Amendment by denying the Nazis a permit to march (Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978)). Critics of anti-gang laws also argue that just because gang members are unpopular to a large segment of society does not give society the right to restrict their right to association. Why, for example, should the KU KLUX KLAN be allowed to march through an African- American ne ighborhood while persons in that neighborhood cannot congregate on a playground to talk or play sports? Critics believe there are better alter- natives to controlling illegal gang activity than loitering laws and community injunctions. The ACLU contends that anti-gang injunctions do not work and may even make things worse. The resources of law enforcement are con- centrated in one area, causing the shift of criminal activity into other neighbor- hoods. In addition, arresting a gang member for violating a loitering ordi- nance will not change the underlying dynamic of gang activity in urban areas. Critics argue that these anti-gang efforts are a cynical, political ploy that has more to do with creating a tough-on-crime appearance than with effective law enforcement. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 34 GANGS Gang-Related Apparel A number of states permit schools to prescribe a dress code, and several of these states specifically allow the schools to prevent gang members from wearing their gang apparel at the schools. For example, under New Jersey law, “a board of education may adopt a dress code policy to prohibit students from wearing, while on school pro- perty, any type of clothing, apparel, or accessory which indicates that the student has member- ship in, or affiliation with, any gang associated with criminal activities.” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 18A:11-9 (1999). Tennessee law allows similar restrictions for students in grades six through twelve. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-4215 (1998). Enhanced Penalties for Gang-Related Activi- ties Some states now allow courts, including juvenile courts, to enhance the sentences of individuals convicted of gang-related activitie s. In Illinois, if a juvenile age 15 or older commits an offense in furtherance of criminal activities by an organized gang, then a juvenile court is required to enter an order to try the juvenile as an adult under the criminal laws of the state. 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 405/5-805 (1999). An organized gang under the statute is defined as “an association of 5 or more persons, with an established HIERARCHY, that encourages members of the association to perpetrate crimes or provides support to members of the association who do commit crimes.” Local Ordinances Municipalities have enacted a variety of mea- sures designed to curb gang violence. Some ordinances contain provisions similar to state statutes. For example, the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, enacted an anti-gang recruitment ordinance to protect its citizens from the fear, intimidation, and physi cal harm caused by the criminal activities of gangs. The ordinance provides a laundry list of offenses that are As an alternative, critics would em- phasize community policing, increased resources for law enforcement, and efforts to improve the economic status of urban areas. They note that crime prevention and effective enforcement of criminal laws will do more to make a community safe than telling a suspected gang member to leave a street corner. In time, they believe, both the public and law enforcement will realize that solid, everyday police work produces better results. Defenders of anti-gang initiatives contend that although First Amendment rights should be protected as much as possible, no CONSTITUTIONAL right is ABSO- LUTE . In the case of gangs, the violence and criminal activity in certain parts of urban areas have reached a stage where normal law enforcement techniques do not work. Although the ACLU may say that individ- ual rights must be protected, such a claim rings hollow when a gang can take over a neighborhood through violence and in- timidation and yet evade law enforce- ment. In a crisis situation, additional steps must be taken to restore public confi- dence in the police and local government. Restrictinggangactivityisnotun- constitutional, argue defenders of the laws, because the Supreme Court has made it clear that no group of persons has the right to associate for wholly illegal aims. Moreover, associations engaging in both legal and illegal activities may still be regulated to the extent they engage in illegal activities. Defenders emphasize that the mere existence of an association is not sufficient to bring all that association’s activities within scope of the First Amend- ment. Therefore, nonexpressive gang activities can be regulated. Defenders also emphasize that injunctions and loitering ordinances are constitutional because they serve signifi- cant, and often compelling, government interests by reducing the threat to public health and safety caused by gang activities. They note that in the case of an INJUNC- TION , gang members are free to conduct their expressive activities outside of the geographic area defined in the injunction. Thus, the injunction is likely to be upheld because it is narrowly tailored. Though defenders believe these anti-gang initiatives will become impor- tant weapon s for law enfor cement, they acknowledge the danger of guilt by association. They believe, however, that this problem can be avoided if law enforcement officials adhere to consti- tutional standards in determining who should be subje cted to anti-gang provi- sions. Judges must also carefully review EVIDENCE for each DEFENDANT to make sure the person has not been unfairly prosecuted. Despite criticisms leveled by the ACLU and others, proponents of anti- gang laws adamantly support their use. While some of these initiatives may prove ineffective, law enforcement should be given the chance to test new ways of addressing destructive elements within their communities. Modifications can be made, and new initiatives plotted, but proponents insist that the law is necessary to protect the health and safety of citizens. FURTHER READINGS Perez, Silvia. 2001. “Alternatives in Fighting Street Gangs: Criminal Anti-Gang Ordi- nances v. Public Nuisance Laws.” St. Thomas Law Review 13 (winter): 619–40. Smith, Stephanie. 2000. “Civil Banishment of Gang Members: Circumventing Criminal Due Process Requirements?” University of Chicago Law Review 67 (fall): 1461–87. Vertinsky, Liza. 1999. A Law and Economics Approach to Criminal Gangs. Aldershot, England; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GANGS 35 considered gang crimes and prohibits indivi- duals from recruiting members to join criminal street gangs. One of the most common forms of munici- pal ordinances aimed at reducing gang activities appears in the form of anti-loitering laws. The use of these laws to reduc e unwan ted elements within a city has a long history. Many cities have enacted such laws to allow police to arrest vagrants and others deemed to be menace s to society. Several cities adapted these laws to apply specifically to gang members. However, some courts have determined that these laws are unconstitutional either on their FACE or as applied to particular defendants. Local governmental entities have also enacted public nuisance laws designed to allow local law enforcement to enjoin criminal activities. Like the anti-loitering ordinances, these laws have come under attack on a variety of constitutional grounds. Constitutionality of Anti-Gang Laws Laws aimed specifically at prosecuting members of gangs have come under attack due to a variety of constitutional theories. Anti-loitering laws have been challenged on some several grounds, including First Amendment prohibi- tions against vagueness and overbreadth, FOURTH AMENDMENT proscriptions of unreasonable searches and seizures, and constitutional provi- sions that prevent the government from punish- ing individuals merely because of their status. Vagueness has been the primary reason why the Supreme Court has determined that anti- loitering statutes have been unconstitutio nal. In Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1971), the Court determined that an ordinance prohibiting people from assembling on a sidewalk in such a way that it would be annoying to passersby was unconstitutionally vague because its appli- cation was based on sole discretion of police officers to determine what was “annoying.” One year later, in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S. Ct. 839, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1972), the Court held that an ordinance which encouraged arbitrary and erratic arrests was also unconstitutionally vague. Likewise, in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983), the Court held that a California statute that allowed police to arrest individuals who could not show credible and reliable iden tification and account for their presence at a particular location was unconsti- tutional due to vagueness. The Chicago City Council in 1992 enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance that prohib- ited loitering among criminal street gang members at any public place. The ordinance allowed police officers to order any group of individuals who were congregated “ with no apparent purpose” to disperse if the officer believed one of the group was a street gang member. In three years Chicago police issued more than 89,000 dispersal orders and made more than 42,000 arrests under the ordinanc e. In City of Chic ago v. Morales, the Supreme Court, per Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS, determined that the ordinance was unconstitutional due to vagueness for two primary reasons. First, according to the Court, the ordinance failed to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct. Noted the Court, “It is difficult to imagine how any citizen of the city of Chicago standing in a public place with a group of people would know if he or she had an ‘apparent purpose’” under the ordinance. Accordingly, citizens, even those who appeared in public with a gang member, were not provided fair notice of the type of conduct proscribed under the ordi- nance. Second, the ordinance failed to provide minimum guidelines for enforcement. The determination of whether individuals were standing around with no apparent purpose was based on the discretion of the officer. After the 1992 gang ordinance was declared unconstitutional the city o f Chicago enacted a second Gang Congregation Ordinance in 2000. Thesecondordinanceauthorizespoliceto command gang members to disperse when they are con gregated on streets for the purpose of establishing controlover certain areas of thecity. Other efforts to curb gang violence have been ruled constitutional. In People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 929 P.2d 596 (Cal. 1997), the city of San Jose successfully requested an INJUNCTION against local gangs based on violations of state public nuisance laws. The gang members brought suit, challenging that both the statute and the injunction violated the First Amendment. The California Supreme Court determined that neither the injunction nor the statute violated the gang members’ associational rights and that the gang members’ conduct qualified as a public nuisance under the statute. Several cities in GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 36 GANGS California have sought and received temporary and permanent injunctions against local gangs preventing the gang members from congregat- ing i n public places. FURTHER READINGS Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997. Urban Street Gang Enforcement. Washington D.C.: Justice Department, Bureau of Justice Assistance by the Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. Huff, C. Ronald. 2001. Gangs in America III. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strosnider, Kim. 2002. “Anti-Gang Ordinances after City of Chicago v. Morales: The Intersection of Race, Vague- ness Doctrine, and Equal Protection in the Criminal Law.” American Criminal Law Review 39 (winter). CROSS REFERENCES Racketeering; Vagrancy. GAOL The old Englis h word for JAIL. v GARFIELD, JAMES ABRAM James Abram Garfield was a soldier and congressman who became the twentieth PRESI- DENT OF THE UNITED STATES . His inability to perform the duties of office following an ASSASSINATION attempt on July 2, 1881, raised, for the second time in U.S. history, the question of presidential succession. Garfield was born November 19, 1831, in a log cabin near the town of Orange in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. He was the fourth and final child of Abram Garfield and Eliza Ballou Garfield. Garfield’s father’s ancestors were am ong the original settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1827 the father carried their pioneering spirit to Ohio, where he worked on an Ohio Canal construction crew. By the time Garfield was born, his father was a struggling farmer and a founding member of the local Disciples of Christ church. In 1833, when Garfield was just two years old, his father died suddenly, leaving the family in poverty. Garfield’s mother, a descendant of an old Rhode Island family, was a remarkable woman. After her husband ’s death, she ran the small family farm on her own and saw to it that Garfield and his siblings worked hard, attended church, and finished school. After completing his studies at the local school in Orange, Garfield enrolled at the Western Reserve Eclectic INSTITUTE (later Hiram College), at Hiram, Ohio. He eventually went on to Williams College, in Massachusetts. After gradu- ating from Williams with the class of 1856, he returned to theinstitute at Hiram and assumedthe duties of teacher and later principal. On Novem- ber 11, 1858, he married Lucretia Rudolph, his childhood friend, fellow student, and pupil. In addition to teaching and tending to the administration of the institute, Garfield frequent- ly served as a lay speaker in Disciples of Christ churches throughout northern Ohio. Like many members of his church, Garfield advocated free- soil principles and was a firm supporter of the newly organized REPUBLICAN PARTY.(Free-Soilers were opposed to the expansion of SLAVERY in the western states and territories.) With his natural speaking ability, Garfield soon found himself in the political arena. In 1859 he was elected to the Ohio state senate. As the United States neared civil war, Garfield put his speaking abilities to work for the Union, recruiting men and raising troops for battle. In the summer of 1861, he followed his own advice and recruited a group of volunteers from his former school. He assembled the Forty-second Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and served as the unit’s lieutenant colonel and l ater colonel. Though he had no military experience, Garfield did have a voracious appetite for knowledge and access to books that could guide his command. He and his men fought at the Battle of Shiloh, in western Tennessee. Garfield left the field when he became ill. After recovering he returned as chief of staff under Major General William S. Rosencrans, with whom he fought at Ch ickamauga, Georgia. After Chickamauga, Garfield was promoted to brigadier general of volunteers, and he was elected, in absentia, to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has been suggested that Garfield was reluctant to surrender his com- mand and take the seat, but he acquiesced when President ABRAHAM LINCOLN pointed out that brigadier generals were in far greater supply than administration Republicans. In December 1863 Garfield took his seat in the Thirty-eighth Congress as the Republican representative from the nineteenth congressio- nal district of Ohio. When the Republicans became the minority party in the House after the election of 1864, Garfield and Congressman James G. Blaine, of Maine, emerged as minority party leaders. Garfield distinguished himself as ALL FREE GOVERNMENTS ARE MANAGED BY THE COMBINED WISDOM AND FOLLY OF THE PEOPLE . —JAMES GARFIELD GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GARFIELD, JAMES ABRAM 37 . older) 59 % GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 32 GANGS when it found that an ordinance such as this in the city of Chicago was unconstitutional. City of Chicago v. Morales, 52 7 U.S with effective law enforcement. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 34 GANGS Gang-Related Apparel A number of states permit schools to prescribe a dress code, and several of these states. Los Angeles City/County Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR) GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GANGS 33 anti-gang program received $2 .5 million in federal funding for its