Family Violence

[Seabear]

I have a student asking questions about a family violence charge. He was charged with Assault Family Violence Class C back in 2010. He tried to get a CHL in 2012 and was denied of course.

I have searched this forum as well as DPS site and CHL 16 for something in writing to share with him about his elgibilty or the lack of. He was told by the judge that the charge carried the same weight as a traffic ticket, but we know better.

He's of the opinion that he may be eligible now since it has been more than five years now.

For the life of me I can't find what I need for him. Somebody want to point me in the right direction? Maybe my eyes are just too fuzzy this morning.

Thanks

[randy634]

I believe he will not qualify. The offense title with "family violence" would make him ineligible. Sounds like he plead down a higher charge to a class C.

[pt145ss]

this was on the DPS website:

34. I tried to buy a gun in preparation for going to take my concealed handgun course so that I could get my concealed handgun license, but my purchase was denied. I contacted FBI/NICS to find out why I was denied. I even appealed their ruling but was still found to be denied. They said it was due to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that they said was from my 1994 Class C ticket for Assault by Contact on my wife. The court documents did not say anything about domestic violence. Will this really disqualify me from obtaining my handgun license?

Yes. If the FBI/NICS has finally determined that you are not eligible to purchase a firearm, then you will be disqualified from obtaining a concealed handgun license since you must be qualified under all federal and state laws to purchase or possess a firearm.

here is an interesting article:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9714.htm

[parabelum]

I always thought it was an out of balance legal scale to have a lifetime disqualifier for CHL/LTC for DV, while at same time allowing multiple DUI offenders (as an example) to obtain a carry license after a certain time period has elapsed.
Both are criminal, and both should rightfully disqualify, for a given time period.

I think that 7 years of sober and responsible behavior after a DV charge ought to be enough.
Caveat is that original DV did not involve a firearm, that no substantial physical harm (hospitalization required) occurred,no subsequent DV of course, and no infractions above C misdemeanor actually, for the entire 7 year time span.
Coupled with all other conditions for LTC, provided that all of the above have been met, I see no reason to impose a lifetime ban.

Makes no sense to me.

[WildBill]

I always thought it was an out of balance legal scale to have a lifetime disqualifier for CHL/LTC for DV, while at same time allowing multiple DUI offenders (as an example) to obtain a carry license after a certain time period has elapsed.
Both are criminal, and both should rightfully disqualify, for a given time period.

I think that 7 years of sober and responsible behavior after a DV charge ought to be enough.
Caveat is that original DV did not involve a firearm, that no substantial physical harm (hospitalization required) occurred,no subsequent DV of course, and no infractions above C misdemeanor actually, for the entire 7 year time span.
Coupled with all other conditions for LTC, provided that all of the above have been met, I see no reason to impose a lifetime ban.

Makes no sense to me.

My opinion is that people got on the "band wagon" against family violence and passed legislation that people didn't full understand the consequences.
After all who is not against family violence?
I also think that the definition of family member is overly broad and unjustified.

[parabelum]

I always thought it was an out of balance legal scale to have a lifetime disqualifier for CHL/LTC for DV, while at same time allowing multiple DUI offenders (as an example) to obtain a carry license after a certain time period has elapsed.
Both are criminal, and both should rightfully disqualify, for a given time period.

I think that 7 years of sober and responsible behavior after a DV charge ought to be enough.
Caveat is that original DV did not involve a firearm, that no substantial physical harm (hospitalization required) occurred,no subsequent DV of course, and no infractions above C misdemeanor actually, for the entire 7 year time span.
Coupled with all other conditions for LTC, provided that all of the above have been met, I see no reason to impose a lifetime ban.

Makes no sense to me.

My opinion is that people got on the "band wagon" against family violence and passed legislation that people didn't full understand the consequences.
After all who is not against family violence?
I also think that the definition of family member is overly broad and unjustified.

Agree 100%.

As of right now, there is no difference relevant to this discussion that makes a distinction between someone who held an out of control uncle by the arm that gave him a bruise, and a husband who sent his wife to the hospital with busted teeth and eye laceration that needed stitches.
One might be DV plus something else, the former will be DV only perhaps. Both will have "DV" on their record however.

[thetexan]

The only restriction I can find is for a class a mis of family violence as per 22.01 and then only after 5 years. A search for class c finds nothing related.

[WildBill]

The only restriction I can find is for a class a mis of family violence as per 22.01 and then only after 5 years. A search for class c finds nothing related.

GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY.
Text of subsection effective on Jan. 1, 2016
(a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a handgun if the person:
(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding the date
of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a license under
Section 411.173(a);
(2) is at least 21 years of age;
(3) has not been convicted of a felony;
(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor
or equivalent offense, or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or
equivalent offense, or of a felony under an information or indictment;
(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B
misdemeanor or equivalent offense;
(6) is not a chemically dependent person;
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper
use and storage of a handgun;
(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted
of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of an offense
under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense;
(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a
handgun;

I am getting over my head, but I believe the attached is the applicable federal law.
It states a misdemeanor family violence conviction is a bar to owning a firearm. It makes no statement of the "Class".
I believe a more knowledgeable person will step in to confirm or deny my interpretation.
http://www.rip.uscourts.gov/rip/supervi ... bition.pdf

[WildBill]

He was told by the judge that the charge carried the same weight as a traffic ticket, but we know better.

Maybe as far as Texas law is concerned, but not Federal law.
Maybe the same judge will approve an expunction order.

[Ryan]

Also, I do believe that domestic violence charges have the highest number of innocent people charged. Which means a lot of people losing their gun rights forever when they are truly not guilty of any crime.

[Texsquatch]

If your daughter gets slapped around - just even a little bit - are you going to to fight for the guy's gun rights?

I only say this because whatever the law allows is fine by me, but the closer a person is to a situation, the less they care about the offender's rights, no matter how much time has passed.

[Pawpaw]

If your daughter gets slapped around - just even a little bit - are you going to to fight for the guy's gun rights?

I only say this because whatever the law allows is fine by me, but the closer a person is to a situation, the less they care about the offender's rights, no matter how much time has passed.

The problem is that you don't have to do ANYTHING to wind up convicted of domestic violence.

In most jurisdictions, all that is required is for the wife to call the cops and claim, "he hit me." There doesn't need to be any evidence at all. You show up in court with a he said - she said situation. No bruises, no witnesses, no nothing, but the judge will find the man guilty. I've seen it, personally.

[Javier730]

If your daughter gets slapped around - just even a little bit - are you going to to fight for the guy's gun rights?

I only say this because whatever the law allows is fine by me, but the closer a person is to a situation, the less they care about the offender's rights, no matter how much time has passed.

The problem is that you don't have to do ANYTHING to wind up convicted of domestic violence.

In most jurisdictions, all that is required is for the wife to call the cops and claim, "he hit me." There doesn't need to be any evidence at all. You show up in court with a he said - she said situation. No bruises, no witnesses, no nothing, but the judge will find the man guilty. I've seen it, personally.

I used to think like Texsquatch, until I saw it for myself. The woman called the cops in front of me after an argument the guy "won". She told the responding officers he hit her and that was it. What I said did not matter. He was arrested and convicted.

[casp625]

If your daughter gets slapped around - just even a little bit - are you going to to fight for the guy's gun rights?

I only say this because whatever the law allows is fine by me, but the closer a person is to a situation, the less they care about the offender's rights, no matter how much time has passed.

The problem is that you don't have to do ANYTHING to wind up convicted of domestic violence.

In most jurisdictions, all that is required is for the wife to call the cops and claim, "he hit me." There doesn't need to be any evidence at all. You show up in court with a he said - she said situation. No bruises, no witnesses, no nothing, but the judge will find the man guilty. I've seen it, personally.

I used to think like Texsquatch, until I saw it for myself. The woman called the cops in front of me after an argument the guy "won". She told the responding officers he hit her and that was it. What I said did not matter. He was arrested and convicted.

It's even worse when the officer lies in his report and says you admitted to an assault that you never committed

[parabelum]

If your daughter gets slapped around - just even a little bit - are you going to to fight for the guy's gun rights?

I only say this because whatever the law allows is fine by me, but the closer a person is to a situation, the less they care about the offender's rights, no matter how much time has passed.

The problem is that you don't have to do ANYTHING to wind up convicted of domestic violence.

In most jurisdictions, all that is required is for the wife to call the cops and claim, "he hit me." There doesn't need to be any evidence at all. You show up in court with a he said - she said situation. No bruises, no witnesses, no nothing, but the judge will find the man guilty. I've seen it, personally.

I used to think like Texsquatch, until I saw it for myself. The woman called the cops in front of me after an argument the guy "won". She told the responding officers he hit her and that was it. What I said did not matter. He was arrested and convicted.

Agree 100%.