CHL REVOKED class C misdemeanor sec 42.01

[maltz99]

I will try to make this short. In 2006 I was charged with discharging a firearm in public. Though I was justified in firing my weapon for protection and was not arrested at the time, the 3 occupants of the vehicle i shot at were for DUI and PI's. A year later, the passenger had charges filed against me for (i forget the name of the charge) but for shooting at her. It wasn't agg assault but it was called something else and was a class A or B felony. The passenger who had charges filed against me did not mention the whole story of when i shot at them, only telling the PD that on a specific day I shot at them... Anyhow, through many court visits the story of why i actually fired the gun was out and the prosecutor was going to dismiss the charges but being strongly against CHL holders she did not want to dismiss without me not having to give up my CHL. As soon as I found out this information I voluntarily gave my CHL to her (prosecutor) to get this charge dismissed. Well, she found out that she couldn't legally prevent me from having a CHL unless i was charge with something so she charged me with the class C under section 42.01.
So here is the problem, my 5 years of no CHL is up for the charge but i'm told I have an additional 2 years penalty because my CHL was revoked. The thing is, I did surrender my CHL to the courts (June 2006) prior to it being revoked (Aug 17th of 06) and under the law if it is surrendered prior to revocation, there is no penalty.
Does anyone have any ideas for me?
Thanks!

[AEA]

Maybe you should have come here sooner?

[maltz99]

yeah well when your on the hot seat for jail time for a strong felony that youre innocent of you tend to listen to your lawyer right away when he said you should voluntarily surrender your CHL to the prosecutor... i still get so mad at the whole thing. All it does is teach someone to not call 911 when you use your gun even when justified. Buy a throw down and make sure nobody or nothing sees what you did.... Hell, even the cop said it was a good shoot and a year later i have to deal with this. This guy was a Houston firefighter and lost his career over what he did too (DWI and on anti depressants). His fiance is the one who had the charges laid on me. It cost me 8 grand to walk away as i did and would have cost another 8K to go to trial... Wish i had the money to have gone to trial!

[C-dub]

I'm sorry I can't help. Seems like a better lawyer could have done you better.

I hope you realize that had you done what you suggested you would likely have been in WAY more trouble.

[paulhailes]

Welcome to the forum. Sounds like you had a pretty tough break, I would suggest talking to someone higher up a DPS, maybe someone at a lower level misunderstood the procedure or maybe they did not record you surrendering your CHL. IANAL but I would talk to one if I thought I was unjustly being denied my CHL. I hope you are able to get things figured out.

[Jumping Frog]

. . . the prosecutor was going to dismiss the charges but being strongly against CHL holders she did not want to dismiss without me not having to give up my CHL. . ...The thing is, I did surrender my CHL to the courts (June 2006) prior to it being revoked (Aug 17th of 06)

I'll bet the anti-gunner prosecutor "accidentally" ensured your surrender was not recorded. . .

[Keith B]

Wasn't this back during the time that Chuckie Rosenthal was the DA?

[Keith B]

yeah well when your on the hot seat for jail time for a strong felony that youre innocent of you tend to listen to your lawyer right away when he said you should voluntarily surrender your CHL to the prosecutor... i still get so mad at the whole thing. All it does is teach someone to not call 911 when you use your gun even when justified. Buy a throw down and make sure nobody or nothing sees what you did.... heck, even the cop said it was a good shoot and a year later i have to deal with this. This guy was a Houston firefighter and lost his career over what he did too (DWI and on anti depressants). His fiance is the one who had the charges laid on me. It cost me 8 grand to walk away as i did and would have cost another 8K to go to trial... Wish i had the money to have gone to trial!

Not knowing all of the details of your incident, it is hard to make a call on justifiable or not. However, recommending anyone do something illegal is not appropriate and also against forum rules.

If this happened when and where I think it did, in Harris county in 2006, then even with a good shoot, you were more than likely caught up in the wrath of a Prosecutor (Chuck Rosenthal) who did not like CHL's and would go out of his way to make their life miserable if he had the chance. Add that to a lawyer who wanted to let you take the 'easy way out' on surrendering your license vs. trying to fight it (which would have probably cost you at least twice what you paid him) and ran the risk of felony conviction, then you got caught in a bad deal if your shoot was truly justified.

Bottom line, we that carry under authority of CHL have to make the determination of if we are justified to shoot or not. Only we can make that decision at the time of the event. My rule is, if I, my family or another is not in current clear imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, then the gun will stay holstered and the 911 call will be made to deal with the situation and I will be making sure to distance myself or others from the potential threat.

[A-R]

I am NOT attempting to question the validity of the OP, but I'm trying to figure a scenario where a CHL firing into another vehicle would be "justified" in an obvious, textbook, black-n-white way. All I can come up with is ...

A) they (vehicle occupants) were firing at the OP
B) the vehicle driver was trying to run you down with vehicle

I may be missing some other possible scenario, but other than those two I can't think of another that would be absolutely justified (and even above two may be unjustified depending on circumstance).

Add to the realm of possibility the all too typical scenario of a road rage incident gone too far (with either or both parties at fault as the "rager" - once bullets start flying, doesnt really matter - the party shooting is instantly labeled as the side that went "too far") and I'm puzzled as to what exactly happened leading up to this unfortunate loss of CHL.

Again, I am NOT intending to disparage the OP in any way. Just trying to connect the dots of this story to fill in some blanks. Regardless of how overzealous a prosecutor was, anything short of a "textbook" good shoot (if there is such a thing) always has the potential to turn sour for the shooter ... which leads right into KeithB's very appropriate statement above about the narrow circumstances in which he would draw a weapon (an action-reaction MO that I rely on as well).

If the OP is not comfortable revealing more details of the incident, I fully understand. If the OP asks us to take him at his word that his actions discharging a firearm were justified, then I have no basis other than pure analytical speculation to question him.

But for me personally to fully understand this situation and make any further comment, I would need more details.

[KaiserB]

Rather than wander off into hypotheticals about shooting at drunks here is the pertinent section of the law that answers your question. Your answer is highlighted in red so it looks like you will be waiting another 2 years.

Even though you surrendered the CHL the DPS procedurally would most likely revoke the license to invalidate the original.

GC §411.186. REVOCATION.

(a) A license may be revoked under this section if the license holder:

(1) was not entitled to the license at the time it was issued;

(2) gave false information on the application;

(3) subsequently becomes ineligible for a license under Section 411.172, unless the sole basis for the ineligibility is that the license holder is charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;

(4) is convicted of an offense under Section 46.035, Penal Code; or

(5) is determined by the department to have engaged in conduct constituting a reason to suspend a license listed in Section 411.187(a) after the person's license has been previously suspended twice for the same reason.

(b) If a peace officer believes a reason listed in Subsection (a) to revoke a license exists, the officer shall prepare an affidavit on a form provided by the department stating the reason for the revocation of the license and giving the department all of the information available to the officer at the time of the preparation of the form. The officer shall attach the officer's reports relating to the license holder to the form and send the form and attachments to the appropriate division of the department at its Austin headquarters not later than the fifth working day after the date the form is prepared. The officer shall send a copy of the form and the attachments to the license holder. If the license holder has not surrendered the license or the license was not seized as evidence, the license holder shall surrender the license to the appropriate division of the department not later than the 10th day after the date the license holder receives the notice of revocation from the department, unless the license holder requests a hearing from the department. The license holder may request that the justice court in the justice court precinct in which the license holder resides review the revocation as provided by Section 411.180. If a request is made for the justice court to review the revocation and hold a hearing, the license holder shall surrender the license on the date an order of revocation is entered by the justice court.

(c) A license holder whose license is revoked for a reason listed in this section 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.

[KC5AV]

I seem to recall something about surrendering your license prior to revocation could help avoid the additional 2 years. I don't have my teaching material close at hand, so hopefully one of the other instructors will be along soon to either confirm this, or tell me that I'm simply imagining things.

[MasterOfNone]

We also have to consider the original charges. Once the OP was originally charged with the class A/B, his CHL would be suspended and he was obligated to surrender it. I expect at that point it is too late to voluntarily surrender it. Since it sounds like that charge was not dismissed until the 42.01 conviction, there was no period during which the OP had a CHL to surrender.

[Oldgringo]

...Bottom line, we that carry under authority of CHL have to make the determination of if we are justified to shoot or not. Only we can make that decision at the time of the event. My rule is, if I, my family or another is not in current clear imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, then the gun will stay holstered and the 911 call will be made to deal with the situation and I will be making sure to distance myself or others from the potential threat.

No sounder advice will be forthcoming from anyone or from any direction.

Thanks be to Keith B. SALUT!

[C-dub]

But, didn't the DA or ADA figure out that without charging him and his surrendering of the license did not allow her to take it for as long as she could if she did charge him? So, she did go ahead and charge him with a Class C misdemeanor and he lost it for 5 years. The question is related to that he is being told he has an additional two years to wait because they think his license was revoked, when he actually surrendered it.

My problem with this is that they are trying to turn a five year revocation into a 7 year revocation. How can that be possible?

[MasterOfNone]

But, didn't the DA or ADA figure out that without charging him and his surrendering of the license did not allow her to take it for as long as she could if she did charge him? So, she did go ahead and charge him with a Class C misdemeanor and he lost it for 5 years. The question is related to that he is being told he has an additional two years to wait because they think his license was revoked, when he actually surrendered it.

My problem with this is that they are trying to turn a five year revocation into a 7 year revocation. How can that be possible?

The OP said:

I voluntarily gave my CHL to her (prosecutor) to get this charge dismissed

which implies that charges were pending when he surrendered the CHL. Therefore, it would not have been voluntary because he was required to surrender it for the pending-charges suspension. This is probably the reasoning they are using.
The 7-year issue is by statute, as KaiserB posted. If you're still ineligible after two years, you must wait two years AFTER your disqualification ceases to exist (5+2).