Texas CHL requirements? Not strict enough?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Convictions that do not result in loss of constitutional rights (felony), should not be disqualifying. (Yes, I include misdemeanor family violence convictions.) We live in a different world post Heller and we need to rethink gun laws. Since the Second Amendment has now been determined to be an individual right, we must focus on crimes that the Supreme Court has held to waive one's constitutional rights. Further, we must also focus on restoration of all constitutional rights after such convictions, not just voting rights.

It truly is a new day.
Chas.

[mbw]

Convictions that do not result in loss of constitutional rights (felony), should not be disqualifying. (Yes, I include misdemeanor family violence convictions.) We live in a different world post Heller and we need to rethink gun laws. Since the Second Amendment has now been determined to be an individual right, we must focus on crimes that the Supreme Court has held to waive one's constitutional rights. Further, we must also focus on restoration of all constitutional rights after such convictions, not just voting rights.

It truly is a new day.
Chas.

YES!!!

[jimlongley]

I think Texas should eliminate CHL and go to constitutional carry.

What do you consider Constitutional carry? Expand MPA (must conceal, must not be committing any other crime) to pedestrians? Repeal all of chapter 46? Something in between?

If you are a law abiding citizen, you can carry under the Second Amendment, no restrictions, no license, open or concealed, "Vermont Style."

Now all you have to do is define law abiding citizen. Never convicted of anything? No traffic tickets? Nothing but misdemeanor convictions? No violent offenses? Any felonies acceptable?

Get's sticky pretty quickly, don't you think?

Nope, see above comments by Charles. Back when the Constitution was written and amended, being convicted of certain crimes would get your rights removed, anything else was essentially "law abiding" with some small exception (incompetents, predicate misdemeanants [see comments about domestic violence]). As I have pointed out and defended in other similar threads, I am in favor of NO lines of demarcation, not in which guns we can own, and not in who can own a gun, because lines are too easy to move with the simple "if A then why not B" argument. I see the ultimate line as being the ones drawn originally, no bargaining, no fudging the edges, no special cases.

[grim-bob]

Convictions that do not result in loss of constitutional rights (felony), should not be disqualifying. (Yes, I include misdemeanor family violence convictions.) We live in a different world post Heller and we need to rethink gun laws. Since the Second Amendment has now been determined to be an individual right, we must focus on crimes that the Supreme Court has held to waive one's constitutional rights. Further, we must also focus on restoration of all constitutional rights after such convictions, not just voting rights.

It truly is a new day.
Chas.

I'm in agreement Charles. So how palatable is that with our legislature? Something akin to what AZ has for their license would be nice.

[i8godzilla]

Deferred adjudication should NOT count as a conviction. I have multiple permits from other states but can't get one in Texas due to a Deferred charge from 17yrs ago after listening to a lawyer.

Although this does not effect me, I think it is wrong to count Deferred Adjudication as a conviction.

[Big Tuna]

Deferred adjudication should NOT count as a conviction.

Did you plead guilty to the crime? Were you guilty?

[rm9792]

Deferred adjudication should NOT count as a conviction.

Did you plead guilty to the crime? Were you guilty?

I think i plead no contest in mine. No i was not guilty in my case but i couldnt afford to fight it. Even the da agreed i likely wasnt guilty but he refused to drop it as it would hurt his closure rate. He actually said that. Def adj should go away if you complete successfully IMO.

[EconDoc]

Misdemeanor disqualifications should depend on the type of misdemeanor. Not all Class A and B misdemeanors are equal. A DWI conviction should cause a longer loss of CHL than some others. Basically, any misdemeanor that involves violence or creating a threat to public safety should get hammered harder than those that don't involve violence or actions that put others at risk.

[Heartland Patriot]

Convictions that do not result in loss of constitutional rights (felony), should not be disqualifying. (Yes, I include misdemeanor family violence convictions.) We live in a different world post Heller and we need to rethink gun laws. Since the Second Amendment has now been determined to be an individual right, we must focus on crimes that the Supreme Court has held to waive one's constitutional rights. Further, we must also focus on restoration of all constitutional rights after such convictions, not just voting rights.

It truly is a new day.
Chas.

Once again, Mr. Cotton is SPOT ON. I don't have a problem with background checks. I don't have a problem with the CHL as an indication to LEOs that I have been background checked and found to have a good record and understand the rudiments of the laws. I DO have a problem with deferred adjudications and non-violent misdemeanors being disqualifiers, as well as someones CHL being revoked for a non-violent offense that they haven't even been convicted of doing. There are a LOT of issues with our current system and they do need to be addressed, not backburnered like it doesn't matter. BUT, it would be worse to not have a shall-issue system at all...think of folks in states like California or New York. Texas isn't perfect on this by any means, but at least for now, we are moving in the right direction. We just need to ensure that we don't slip back.

[Cobra Medic]

Misdemeanor disqualifications should depend on the type of misdemeanor. Not all Class A and B misdemeanors are equal. A DWI conviction should cause a longer loss of CHL than some others. Basically, any misdemeanor that involves violence or creating a threat to public safety should get hammered harder than those that don't involve violence or actions that put others at risk.

If that's true they need to fix the penal code, not the CHL requirements. The reason for different classes of offenses is to group crimes by how bad they are. If something is a class a misdemeanor but it's worse than other class a misdemeanors, maybe it should be a state jail felony or other felony. On the other hand, If something is a class a misdemeanor but it's not as bad as other class a misdemeanors, maybe it should be a class b misdemeanor.

I don't have a problem with deferred adjudication counting as a conviction. It's no different than someone taking any other plea bargain. They admitted (or stipulated) guilt in exchange for not risking a criminal trial that could put them behind bars.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't have a problem with deferred adjudication counting as a conviction. It's no different than someone taking any other plea bargain. They admitted (or stipulated) guilt in exchange for not risking a criminal trial that could put them behind bars.

They didn't admit guilt in the sense of pleading guilty and taking a reduced penalty. They had to plead guilty or no contest in order to be given deferred adjudication. They were also told by the prosecutor, judge and their own attorney that the plea would be set aside, the indictment dismissed (if a felony), and the case dismissed if they successfully completed the probationary period. They were also told deferred adjudication is not a conviction, and it isn't.

That's a lot different from pleading guilty and getting a sentence. Don't think for a moment that everyone who takes deferred adjudication actually committed the crime. It's very often done because they can't afford a good attorney.

Chas.

[WildBill]

No i was not guilty in my case but i couldnt afford to fight it. Even the da agreed i likely wasnt guilty but he refused to drop it as it would hurt his closure rate. He actually said that.

That just burns me up.

[SWAMPRNR]

They didn't admit guilt in the sense of pleading guilty and taking a reduced penalty. They had to plead guilty or no contest in order to be given deferred adjudication. They were also told by the prosecutor, judge and their own attorney that the plea would be set aside, the indictment dismissed (if a felony), and the case dismissed if they successfully completed the probationary period. They were also told deferred adjudication is not a conviction, and it isn't.

That's a lot different from pleading guilty and getting a sentence. Don't think for a moment that everyone who takes deferred adjudication actually committed the crime. It's very often done because they can't afford a good attorney.

Chas.

That was my problem.The District Attorneys office was the only one to pursue charges and would not drop them. After months in court and 15k in legal fees i took my attorneys advise and took deferred adjudication for a couple of months. And my court papers also say charges set aside and released without adjudication.

[EconDoc]

You know, after reading Mr. Cotton's post, I had to go back and change my vote and my opinion. Only convictions which result in loss of civil rights (felony convictions) should be disqualifying. If that creates a problem, then maybe the penal code ought to be changed.

[Rebel]

I don't have a problem with deferred adjudication counting as a conviction. It's no different than someone taking any other plea bargain. They admitted (or stipulated) guilt in exchange for not risking a criminal trial that could put them behind bars.

They didn't admit guilt in the sense of pleading guilty and taking a reduced penalty. They had to plead guilty or no contest in order to be given deferred adjudication. They were also told by the prosecutor, judge and their own attorney that the plea would be set aside, the indictment dismissed (if a felony), and the case dismissed if they successfully completed the probationary period. They were also told deferred adjudication is not a conviction, and it isn't.

That's a lot different from pleading guilty and getting a sentence. Don't think for a moment that everyone who takes deferred adjudication actually committed the crime. It's very often done because they can't afford a good attorney.

Chas.

Isn't that the problem with deferred adjudication, in that many are led to believe that it "doesn't count", only to learn at a later time, via a job background check or possibly a NICS checks that it does show and is there.

I believe I read an article where they were talking about ending deferred adjudication in Texas, or heavily changing it as it is often used to get a young or 1st time offender to plea "guilty" based on the belief that it all goes away.