CHL and domestic violence

dws1117 · #1

A co-worker is intrested in obtaining a CHL. Ten yeas ago he was arrested for domestic violence and convicted of a class B misdomenor. His says his record is clean other than that conviction and nothing in the ten years since. Would he be disqualified from CHL?

I could only find one part that mentioned a Class B misdomeanor but nothing concerning domestic violence.

(c) An individual who has been convicted two times within
the10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for
a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater
that involves the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory
element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for purposes
of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under this
subchapter. This subsection does not preclude the disqualification of
an individual for being a chemically dependent person if other
evidence exists to show that the person is a chemically dependent
person

frankie_the_yankee · #2

I think your co-worker is DQ'd from getting a TX CHL. One of the requirements is that you have to be eligible to buy a handgun under federal law. With a DV conviction, your co-worker is not eligible to purchase a handgun, so he cannot get a CHL.

There's a place on the form where you have to list any criminal convictions you have. When he puts down the DV conviction, he will be rejected.

Worse yet, there is no expiration date or time limit. Unless federal law is changed (not likely), the DV conviction sticks for life.

The best he can do is keep a gun in his car, (under the new law that takes effect on SEP 1, 2007) provided he can "obtain" one through some legal means - like a gift or something.

Sorry.

dws1117 · #3

Thanks. That is what I was thinking, but I didn't want to give incorrect information.

frankie_the_yankee · #4

I just noticed something. You said he was ARRESTED for DV and convicted of a Class B misdemeanor. I assumed from that that his CONVICTION was for a DV offense. If so, then he is DQ'd like I said.

But if he ended up pleading out to some NON-DV offense like assault and battery or something, then he could still qualify for a CHL.

I realize this is probably not likely but I just thought I'd mention it. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what he was arrested for. The only thing that counts is what he was CONVICTED of.

dws1117 · #5

From what was told to me was that it was a conviction of DV.

Thanks for the help. He won't be too happy.

KBCraig · #6

If the conviction involved any form of violence or threat of violence against a spouse or domestic partner, he is disqualified from owning any firearms. Even if they don't call it "domestic violence" on his record.

Thanks to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the GCA was amended in 1996 to cover any conviction which:
"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

It's a permanent bar on owning firearms or ammunition, even ex post facto.

frankie_the_yankee · #7

KBCraig wrote:If the conviction involved any form of violence or threat of violence against a spouse or domestic partner, he is disqualified from owning any firearms.

Thanks to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the GCA was amended in 1996 to cover any conviction which:
"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

It's a permanent bar on owning firearms or ammunition, even ex post facto.

That's just per federal law. Under TX law, he can own firearms. He just can't purchase any from an FFL.

My understanding is that TX LEO's do not enforce the federal (Lautenberg) ban, or any other federal laws for that matter.

#8

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
KBCraig wrote:If the conviction involved any form of violence or threat of violence against a spouse or domestic partner, he is disqualified from owning any firearms.

Thanks to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the GCA was amended in 1996 to cover any conviction which:
"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

It's a permanent bar on owning firearms or ammunition, even ex post facto.
That's just per federal law. Under TX law, he can own firearms. He just can't purchase any from an FFL.

My understanding is that TX LEO's do not enforce the federal (Lautenberg) ban, or any other federal laws for that matter.

That's not correct. As Kevin said, it's a federal felony and it can very well be enforced in Texas. Dr. Emerson is a good example.

Chas.

TX Rancher · #9

Charles:

I'm going to show my ignorance here and ask what the Dr. Emerson thing is about.

frankie_the_yankee · #10

Charles L. Cotton wrote: That's not correct. As Kevin said, it's a federal felony and it can very well be enforced in Texas. Dr. Emerson is a good example.

Chas.

Ooops! You're right! My bad.

seamusTX · #11

TX Rancher wrote:I'm going to show my ignorance here and ask what the Dr. Emerson thing is about.

It's a court case that upheld the Lautenberg amendment. Google "Emerson v. United States."

- Jim

#12

TX Rancher wrote:Charles:

I'm going to show my ignorance here and ask what the Dr. Emerson thing is about.

Dr. Emmerson was in a nasty divorce and was subject to typical injunctions in a divorce that prohibit various acts of family violence. This triggered the Violence Against Women Act (VAW) that prohibits possession of firearms, ammo, and ammo components and he was found guilty. (There were other allegations, but they are not relevant to this discussion.) His case went to the 5th Circuit where the Court held the Second Amendment was an individual right, but that the VAW did not violate the Second Amendment.

Chas.

Sly Dog · #13

TX Rancher wrote:Charles:

I'm going to show my ignorance here and ask what the Dr. Emerson thing is about.

http://www.ejfi.org/emerson.htm

KBCraig · #14

Note that this guy is in jail just for having ammunition, not guns.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... 7709010540

September 1, 2007

Police raid home, find 80,000 rounds
Man stockpiling ammunition and other items was sent for psychological evaluation in April

SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Authorities removed almost 80,000 rounds of ammunition from the home of a man they said had been stockpiling supplies in the belief the world was on the brink of economic collapse and violence.

Kevin W. Rieder, 38, who was committed to a mental facility for about two weeks last spring after he was diagnosed as paranoid, was charged with illegal possession of ammunition in violation of an earlier restraining order taken out by an ex-girlfriend, Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Schmidt said.
Receipts indicated Rieder had bought large amounts of 9 mm, .22-caliber, .38-caliber, 12-gauge and 20-gauge ammunition, according to court documents.

No specific weapons were identified in the documents as being in Rieder's possession, although an affidavit stated that Rieder had told an ammunition dealer and another man that he had at least one AK-47 assault weapon at home.

Rieder will remain in custody until a bail and detention hearing Tuesday, Schmidt said.

South Bend police and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives blocked off streets around Rieder's small two-story home for six hours Wednesday while they executed a search warrant and arrested Rieder. The raid followed a six-month investigation, Schmidt said.

During a search of Rieder's home in April, ATF agents noticed large amounts of ammunition, radios, car parts, batteries, plastic sheeting, flashlights, water and other items. They also found several 25-gallon drums of gasoline in his garage.

Rieder, who told authorities, "You just have to protect yourself sometimes," was committed for a psychological evaluation at that time and later released after a hearing at which it was determined he was not a danger to himself.

Rieder bought 18,000 rounds of ammunition in three visits to the Midwest
Gun Exchange store in Mishawaka, store owner Brad Foster said.
"18,000 rounds is more than the normal purchase but not out of the line that we do see on a regular basis," he said.

Early last month, his former girlfriend filed a complaint that Rieder had violated the protective order, which allowed authorities to seek the warrant for his arrest.

stevie_d_64 · #15

"18,000 rounds is more than the normal purchase but not out of the line that we do see on a regular basis," he said.

Just about as stupid a statement I've heard of in a while...I'm glad it wasn't me this time...

So If I go out and buy copious amounts of ammunition, say 15K rounds...Is that going to make me pop up on someones radar???

I have to wonder how that works...And who's radar???