TexasCHLforum.com

First. Hi everyone.
Second.
About two years ago I recieved a class C misdemeanor for "assualt - family violence" Before I go any farther I want to say... no I do not beat my family members... My room mate was drunk and I tried to keep him from driving and I grabbed him on the shoulder so he called the police. The officer told me that since my roommate called and I touched him I would get a ticket. I was not arrested... I simply paid the 180 dollar fine and went on.

Question... Do I put this on the application on "page 3" under criminal history/arrests? if so will this automatically disqualify me. Or do they read the police report and make a judgement on character. The police report says what I said in my first paragraph.

I have even spoken with the officer who cited me last week and he says he will help me in anyway he can.

I already have taken the class and I need to know this before I send the packet in.

I have the "understanding" that if it is denied I can setup a hearing to potentially reverse the ruling.

What is the likely hood that it will be denied?

Thank you.

I think they screwed you royally by hanging the "family violence" charge on you instead of just simple assault. They might have been pretending to be sympathetic, but they burned you badly.

You should have gotten a lawyer who may have been able to bargain the charge down to simple assault.

The problem is that any kind of domestic violence misdemeanor disqualifies you forever from being able to buy a gun (from a dealer), in TX or anywhere else, courtesy of a federal law passed during the Klinton administration. It was one of those deals where the gun banners PRETENDED to be trying to protect women from domestic violence, while what they were really up to was to DQ as many people as possible from ever owning guns.

I think that one of the requirements for getting a TX CHL is that you not have any domestic violence misdemeanors (or felonies of course) on your record. Your problem is that you do. And no, they don't "read the police report and make a judgement on character". That would make it into a "may issue" report, where they have discretion to approve or deny. (You don't think the rules would allow them to give people a "break" while not allowing them to deny someone they don't "like", do you?) The CHL is "shall issue". If you meet the requirements, you get it. If you don't, you don't.

It doesn't matter how sympathetic the arresting officer claims to be. (I say "claims" because his department, and/or the local prosecutor, burned you, and they knew what they were doing. Cops are INTENSELY aware of the consequences of any sort of DV conviction, since they do a fair amount of DV themselves, and if they lose their gun rights they have to get a new line of work. They are well aware of how to game the system if necessary. And they took you to slaughter like a baby lamb.)

It doesn't matter if he goes to bat for you himself. And an appeal is unlikely to reverse the denial you almost certainly have coming.

About the only thing you can hope for is to get a pardon from the governor someday.

I sincerely hope that I am mistaken about some aspect of the above, and would welcome someone with more knowledge than I pointing it out. I hope there is some way around this for you.

IANAL, but here's something else I just thought of. Is there any procedure in TX whereby the prosecutor can petition the court to vacate the conviction? Maybe one of the lawyers on the board can answer that. If so, you might be able to get them to do it, in return for you pleading guilty to simple assault. Then your whole life wouldn't be ruined.

Just a thought.

But I doubt it.

BTW, you need a lawyer. Don't try to do anything without seeing one first.

Remember, when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is STOP DIGGING.

Well I can purchase guns I have done so twice in the last few months.
A brand new .45 XD compact was one of them. This is of course after the ticket.

So this is confusing to me alot. I do have a lawyer who is very competent and told me that he could get it off my record.

Another thing I don't understand is that it doesn't show up in any federal background checks or DPS background checks... The only place it is, is at the PD who issued the citation.

robotreagan wrote:Well I can purchase guns I have done so twice in the last few months.
A brand new .45 XD compact was one of them. This is of course after the ticket.

So this is confusing to me alot. I do have a lawyer who is very competent and told me that he could get it off my record.

Another thing I don't understand is that it doesn't show up in any federal background checks or DPS background checks... The only place it is, is at the PD who issued the citation.

That sounds pretty weird. Have your lawyer figure out what is going on before you put your application in.

My lawyer told me to put in the application while he tries to figure it.

This is infuriating that because of my drunk friend it is keeping me from getting my CHL.

I am trying to get as much information as possible and would like to hear as many opinions as I can.

robotreagan wrote: My lawyer told me to put in the application while he tries to figure it.

IANAL, but I wouldn't do that if it were me. I'd want him to figure it out FIRST, then I would put the application in.

If there is some way to squash it or get it off your record, you want to do that before you list it on your application.

Even if it turns out to be too minor an offense to get me DQ'd, I would still want to know that before putting the application in.

If it's money he wants/needs, give him some. If not, try another lawyer. Once your application is in, if there is a problem with it, it is a lot harder to resolve than if the problem were taken care of beforehand.

This is infuriating that because of my drunk friend it is keeping me from getting my CHL. [/quote]

Actually, the way you describe it, I can't understand why you paid the ticket in the first place. It sounds like a "not guilty" plea to me.

The $180 might have been less than what a lawyer would have cost at the time, but look at what you're going through now.

robotreagan wrote:I am trying to get as much information as possible and would like to hear as many opinions as I can.

OK. It doesn't sound like you know whether you were adjudicated guilty or not. Your lawyer can find that out.

You also don't say whether you were a minor at the time of the offense.

Look at item 17 on the blue instructions for the CHL application. It says, "any offense for which you were taken into custody..., or any offense for which you were charged under an information or indictment."

I don't know whether you are required to provide information on a "ticket" under these terms. Your lawyer should be able to tell you.

I agree with Frankie that the cops stuck it to you.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, and good luck. Please post how this works out.

- Jim

Frankie I do agree with you much.

I paid the thing thinking it would do no harm, I even asked the officer if it would effect me concerning firearms he said "no it's just a Class C" Oh well... at the time I couldn't even begin to afford a lawyer. So I just paid it.
Which has turned into a very big mistake. I was 23 at the time. So not a minor.

Seamus... nail on the head... adjudicated guilty/convicted/charged under indictment or information I have no idea what any of these mean.
I have never been taken into custody for anything...ever... the most I have ever had up until this was a speeding ticket about 4 years ago.

I think yeah the cops did stick it to me. The officer that I talked to did sign a "willing to testify" (or something that sounded very lawyery that means the same thing) document from my lawyer if it came down to it in the course of expunction or the DPS hearing.

One reason that I am willing to send it in before hand is:
A.) I'm impatient
B.) Why spend ALOT more money than I already have for a lawyer if it turns out that I don't even need to bother with it.

It makes sense to me but I've been wrong before.

I will keep everyone updated for sure.

I found this place looking for help and it is exactly what I am getting!

IANAL?
DQ'd?

robotreagan wrote:... adjudicated guilty/convicted/charged under indictment or information I have no idea what any of these mean.

Adjudicated guilty means that at some point a judge signed an order saying that you were guilty. That usually happens after a bench hearing or a trial.

Traffic tickets can be handled in a way where you pay a fine, don't go before a judge, and are not found guilty of a misdemeanor (which most traffic tickets are). I don't know in those cases if the charge is dropped, or dismissed, or you are found not guilty.

IANAL?

I Am Not A Lawyer. It's something that people say when they voice a legal opinion.

DQ'd?

Disqualified.

- Jim

What is under an information or indictment mean?

He was not screwed over by the police. Roomates qualify under DV, and the police are REQUIRED to take action. If you have a problem with DV being a disqualifer, I agree.

An indictment is required for a person to be tried in a felony case. All felony cases are reviewed by a Grand Jury. If they believe enough evidence is present to take to trial, they return an indictment.

An information is what charges a misdemeanor.

robotreagan wrote:My lawyer told me to put in the application while he tries to figure it.

This is infuriating that because of my drunk friend it is keeping me from getting my CHL.

I am trying to get as much information as possible and would like to hear as many opinions as I can.

Well...since you asked for opinions....

Look at this as an opportunity to learn a GOOD lesson. It will be especially valuable now that you will be carrying a gun. You ~must~ really consider the consequences before "helping" another person. Don't be so quick to jump into someone elses business.

I know I'll probably hear differing opinions about being a good Samaritan... but you really can do yourself some damage by jumping in before thinking about the consequences, especially regarding the use of guns.

I got a ticket too...for "assault by contact-class C mis." I have been told by everyone asked including my CHL instructor that because it is a class C, it will not keep me from getting my CHL. Sending my packet in this week....

Well...since you asked for opinions....

Look at this as an opportunity to learn a GOOD lesson. It will be especially valuable now that you will be carrying a gun. You ~must~ really consider the consequences before "helping" another person. Don't be so quick to jump into someone elses business.

I know I'll probably hear differing opinions about being a good Samaritan... but you really can do yourself some damage by jumping in before thinking about the consequences, especially regarding the use of guns.

Oh believe me your opinion is highly regarded you are dead on sir. I have learned from my mistakes. It is one of the reasons I waited until I was 25... I started gaining things like "reason" and "common sense" around 22ish and now I am confident that I will use sound judgement for any future incident because I am older and there have been many other instances similar to the original problems that I have not acted in such a way but in a responsible manner.

Thank you txinvestigator that cleared some things up for me.

Target1911 did you include the charge on page 3 of the application?

txinvestigator wrote: He was not screwed over by the police. Roomates qualify under DV, and the police are REQUIRED to take action.

Sure, but the action they take depends on how they evaluate the actual circumstances.

Maybe some cops would have responded and judged that the guy did the right thing and that no law was broken at all. Then, no ticket gets issued and robotreagan is home free.

I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but not EVERY call results in an arrest or citation, right?

Or maybe the drunk roommate gets arrested and robotreagan simply goes on about his business.

That could have happened, right?

And when a cop writes a citation, regardless of what they may be "REQUIRED" to do, by one person's judgement, they might do something else in their own judgement, because they may not honestly feel that the action satisfied all of the criteria to trigger the "required" DV citation.

So robotreagan might just as well have been written for simple assault.

But again, not being there myself I can't really say what was justified and what was not. It just sounds excessive to me based on the way robotreagan recounted what happened.

From what he said, I would have gotten a lawyer, somehow, plead not guilty, and beaten it.

txinvestigator wrote: If you have a problem with DV being a disqualifer, I agree.

Yeah, I do have a problem with that, for the reason I stated previously. While some DV offendors may well deserve to have their gun rights revoked, I do not think it should be automatic and I do not think a misdemeanor should result in a lifetime ban.

The people who pushed that law were not primarily concerned with reducing DV, they were primarily interested in shrinking the pool of possible gun owners over time. As the pool of gun owners is whittled away little by little (first we DQ this group, then that one, and so on) the political support for private gun ownership withers over time. When it is shrunken and weakened enough, they do like they did in the UK and simply ban them all.

They don't care if they have to wait 50 or 100 years, as long as they see us moving down the road towards the goal of "no guns for anyone".

The DV law was just one small step in that direction.