TexasCHLforum.com

In 2007, I was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor and subsequently had my CHL revoked due to loss of eligibility. I'm being told by DPS that if I did not have a license when the conviction occurred I would be eligble to apply as a new applicant after 5 years had passed, but since I had a license when the conviction occurred, I'm not eligible for the 5 years plus an additional 2 year penalty for a total of 7 years.

I've read the statutes, particularly 411.186(c) and do not interpret there to be an additional 2 year penalty. Can anyone comment?


***************************************************
For those of you that are wondering what the conviction was, it was Deadly Conduct. I detained 3 young men (two 17 yr olds and an 18 yr old) who shot my car with an airsoft rifle in a pretend Drive By. I pursued them and detained them at an intersection. In the process of detaining them, I brandished my firearm until I was certain that I was safe. The police arrived and arrested me for Aggravated Assault (2nd Degree Felony) and reduced it to Class A Deadly Conduct as a plea deal. I would have fought the charge but a felony in my business means the loss of my job and inability to work in my industry permanently. It was a risk I couldn't take. The three kids were released without so much as a ticket and they even got their airsoft rifle back. Go figure.

Unfortunately, DPS is correct. Here is the controlling language.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.186(c) wrote:(c) A license holder whose license is revoked for a reason
listed in Subsections (a)(1)-(5) may reapply as a new applicant for
the issuance of a license under this subchapter after the second
anniversary of the date of the revocation if the cause for
revocation does not exist on the date of the second
anniversary. If the cause for revocation exists on the date of the
second anniversary after the date of revocation, the license holder
may not apply for a new license until the cause for revocation no
longer exists and has not existed for a period of two years.

You got a bum deal, IMO. I guess in that jurisdiction it is OK to shoot at people with an AirSoft gun.

In the City of Galveston, the police will shoot someone who does that. Not detain, shoot.

- Jim

Pursuing was probably the dealbreaker.

If someone finds themselves in the position of potentially having their CHL revoked, let me know right away. There is a potential alternative I've obtained for others. I hate to see anyone get tagged with a two year penalty.

Chas.

Raw deal. I wonder how the jerks with the airsoft gun would have faired had they shot at an off duty LEO. I bet things would have been handled differently. Where did this happen?

Charles, Its good to know there are folks out there with our interests in mind. Thanks.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. This was a life changing experience for me. The lesser part being the actual confrontation, the more significant and painfull part being the legal process.

This event occurred in Montgomery County and the arresting department was the Constables Office. I've had mixed reaction from people regarding the event. Most people I know feel my actions were justified and reasonable but some feel that I had no place pursuing and detaining the individuals. On my own behalf, I have always considered concealed carry as a great responsibility, and to that end attempted to be very well versed in the appropriate use of force and deadly force. In this particular scenario, I relied on my understanding of PC 9.51(b) which states "...A person other than a peace officer is justified in the use of force against another when and to the degree the actor deems is reasonably necessary to make or assist in making a lawfull arrest..." I am not one to run around playing police officer, but I believed that a crime had occurred against me and that had I not pursued the individuals as the fled that there would be no chance of police catching them.

I do feel that I got a raw deal, but that's just the way things go sometimes. I had other options available to me. I made my decisions in the heat of the moment, in good faith with the intention of being a good citizen. My experience only reinforces the extraordinary responsibility that comes with a CHL and the realization that such responsibility comes with equally extraordinary consequences.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Thanks for your honesty.

Your story adds to my conviction that citizen arrests for anything short of murder or kidnapping rarely works out well.

- Jim

I detained 3 young men (two 17 yr olds and an 18 yr old) who shot my car with an airsoft rifle in a pretend Drive By.

Let's suppose for a second that the LEO would/could charge the three young men...what would/could they be charged with? Mostly wondering if the charge would/could be classified as a felony?

At what point did you brandish your weapon? And was it ever out of the holster? Was it ever pointed at anyone?

At the time of brandishing, were you already aware that it was only an air-soft gun?

Sorry for so many questions. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your actions, I’m just curious.

pt145ss wrote:Let's suppose for a second that the LEO would/could charge the three young men...what would/could they be charged with?

I think the most serious charge that would stick is malicious mischief or disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors in this case.

I say malicious mischief because an AirSoft gun can damage a car. It doesn't take much to dent the sheet metal on a car.

- Jim

if they pointed and aimed at someone with an airsoft gun, as in a manner to make someone think that it was indeed a real gun, could they be charged with deadly conduct? or something of that nature?
I mean, if you rob someone with an airsoft gun, well, it's still bad news because of the "threat" of deadly force, right?

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in
imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle...

I think it's too much of a stretch.

One could argue that pointing a replica weapon at the driver of a vehicle could cause a crash or heart attack, but nothing of that sort happened in this case.

Firearm is defined in the penal code so as to exclude air guns.

Obviously the police and DA's office were more interested in prosecuting the O.P. for "brandishing" than disciplining the local juvenile delinquents. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the punks had political connections.

- Jim

you're right, on both accounts.

I was just thinking....

seamusTX wrote:Obviously the police and DA's office were more interested in prosecuting the O.P. for "brandishing" than disciplining the local juvenile delinquents. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the punks had political connections.

That or bribes.