Beating The Eligibility Horse

[Ryan]

So I'll make this as short and sweet as possible.

2000- I got a citation for possession and paraphernalia of marijuana- Charge is not on my record.

2005- Charged with felony possession of meth with intent to sell- Charge has been expunged and is not on my record.

2012- Class C Misdemeanor for paraphernalia (pending).

I am legal to own guns again and have legal documentation stating exactly that.

Based on CHL eligibility; it has been over 10 years since the first charge, the second charge has been expunged and the Class C Possession of paraphernalia is just that, a class C Misdemeanor (Not disorderly conduct). Based on my understanding, individually, these alone would not disqualify me.

I'm fairly certain I am correct in the above assumptions of the "technical" part of the eligibility. However the water gets a little muddy concerning the "chemically dependent" part. I feel like it's gonna be a judgement call on the part of whoever processes my application because based on my understanding of the factors, I wouldn't be disqualified unless they considered having 3 drug related blips on my record chemically dependent. And FWIW, I am nowhere near chemically dependent. I used to be but haven't touched anything since 2005. The most recent charge happened because I was with some people who had been smoking and the LEO's found papers in the car and thus we were all ticketed with paraphernalia. I know that is trivial and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things though.

So, based on that, should I even attempt to apply?

[apostate]

You're correct about the potential source of trouble. I don't believe DPS has issued a bright line ruling on chemical dependency, and the legislature gave the department significant discretion by including the following in the law:
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.

[cbunt1]

I think it's grey area. By the letter of the law, you should be clear--specifically in that the records either don't exist or have been expunged (which is to say the same thing as nonexistent.)

That said, the "does not preclude" clause is indeed open-ended, and there have been few, if any, test cases in that context...usually when the "other evidence" comes into play, there's a record, say of DWI, combined with PI charges. I really think the clause was to allow for denial of individuals who might have multiple PI charges without the DWI element that is an automatic disqualifier.

Given the records are expunged, and assuming no other records exist, I wouldn't be surprised if you get a green light. The fly in the ointment MIGHT be the semi-current Class-C, because it could be construed to show a pattern of dependency.

All the usual disclaimers apply...I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night :)

I'm sure one of the other instructors with more history will chime in soon.

[Ryan]

Spoke to DPS today.

Charge 1 was basically a non-issue as it's not on my record and over 10 years old.

Charge 3 is also a non-issue as it's a Class C Misdemeanor.

Charge 2 is the one that they were most concerned about. (Obviously)

I am going to have to send in the records of my expungement so that they can verify that is a true and actual expungement that Texas recognizes, since states have different rules and regulations regarding expungement. They did tell me though that I needed to get the actual papers with the disposition of the case so they could review them. They also told me that if it is, in fact, a true expungement, then they would not be able to provide me with those papers as they are now sealed and gone, so-to-speak. The last thing she told me was that if they couldn't get me the papers that it would be a very good thing.

So called the court house where the felony happened and asked for my papers regarding the case and the disposition. And to my utter delight, the lady said that she couldn't do that because they no longer had them because of the expungement. She is also mailing me a certified copy of the expungement order to send to the TX DPS.

So I called TX DPS back and told them that because of the expungement that no disposition or case papers are available. Again I was told that was a very good thing.

As far as the "chemically dependent" part goes...it didn't seem to be an issue as far as my individual case goes. She by no means gave me a definitive answer to what chemically dependent means. She did tell me however that based on what I told her, I should be good to go. I will not know 100% until after I send in the expungement order but it sounds promising so far. :FingersCrossed:

[ctsmith9962]

Any news on your CHL?

[Ryan]

There is some descrepancy in the way TX DPS is reading KS statute and the way my lawyers and I read it. I have been told by my lawyers that my firearms rights have been restored. I have also been pulled over and had my record ran (IN TX) with both my pistol and my AR-15 in the car, and they let me go. So I know my firearm rights have been restored.I haven't yet decided if I want to possibly waste 250 or more dollars to gamble on whether I can get my CHL or not. I don't have that kind of money just to throw away. And DPS refuses to do much prescreening for CHL's, which I can understand. I was basically told that I probably wouldn't qualify but she was not 100% sure I would be rejected. And given the fact that I can carry it in my vehicle wherever I go, I am just probably gonna leave it at that. Not sure yet. If I do, in fact, go ahead and apply...I will be sure to post my results for everyone's reference.

[bayouhazard]

Is DPS treating it like DA and saying you have to wait 10 years or are they saying it's permanent?

[bluto]

Doesn't the expungement mean the arrest "never happened"? So if a background check was run, wouldn't the arrest not even show up?

[Ameer]

Doesn't the expungement mean the arrest "never happened"? So if a background check was run, wouldn't the arrest not even show up?

You can make the gamble but if you say no and DPS finds the arrest, they can reject your application, and I think they should.

[Jumping Frog]

Doesn't the expungement mean the arrest "never happened"? So if a background check was run, wouldn't the arrest not even show up?

You can make the gamble but if you say no and DPS finds the arrest, they can reject your application, and I think they should.

Slow down slugger. Depending upon the jurisdiction and how their expungements are handled, the person is absolutely instructed that they can and should lawfully answer "No" under any circumstances where someone is asking the question "Have you ever been convicted. . . ".

If the KS statute says he should lawfully answer "No", not sure why you would be such a self-righteous cowboy about it.

[recaffeination]

I don't think we're in Kansas any more.

[tacticool]

Doesn't the expungement mean the arrest "never happened"? So if a background check was run, wouldn't the arrest not even show up?

You can make the gamble but if you say no and DPS finds the arrest, they can reject your application, and I think they should.

Slow down slugger. Depending upon the jurisdiction and how their expungements are handled, the person is absolutely instructed that they can and should lawfully answer "No" under any circumstances where someone is asking the question "Have you ever been convicted. . . ".

The Texas CHL application asks, "Have you ever been arrested or charged with a crime?" Even if the charges were dropped, disclosure is required. Even if they're sealed juvenile records, disclosure is required. I'm seeing a trend here.

It's true that if it's expunged and meets DPS standards, it won't disqualify someone. That's different than not being required to report the arrest, charges, conviction, etc. in the first place. A deferred adjudication doesn't count as a conviction under normal circumstances, but it can for a Texas CHL application. Honesty is the best policy. If someone chooses to not tell the truth on the Texas application, even if some other state said they're allowed to not tell the truth, I agree their Texas CHL application should be denied on that grounds.

Also:
"I understand that I must submit certified copies of all judgments and charging instruments from the courts or a record search indicating no record was found, for each Criminal History item listed above. Failure to report an arrest or conviction may result in denial or revocation of a license based solely on the material misstatement of fact in this application."

If the KS statute says he should lawfully answer "No", not sure why you would be such a self-righteous cowboy about it.

As recaf said, this is Texas and he's applying for a Texas license, so Texas rules apply. If someone applies for a Kansas license then Kansas rules will apply.

[Jumping Frog]

If the KS statute says he should lawfully answer "No", not sure why you would be such a self-righteous cowboy about it.

As recaf said, this is Texas and he's applying for a Texas license, so Texas rules apply. If someone applies for a Kansas license then Kansas rules will apply.

Kansas rules apply about reporting whether any event -- arrest or conviction -- is defined as such under Kansas law. Sure, he is in Texas. But if Kansas says no conviction ever occurred, and Kansas law specifies the answer should be "No" to any questions about a conviction, then that is how it should be answered.

[bluto]

I wanted to point out that I'm not the OP. I saw I was being quoted, and didn't want anyone confusing me with the OP that acutally did these things in KS. I was just curious about the expungement portion of it.

[03Lightningrocks]

Wow! Congrats OP!! That is some pretty serious stuff you have there. If it was all in a year or so time frame I might write it off to misguided youth. Those kinds of offenses spread out over years makes me think career criminal. METH? With intent to distribute? REALLY? This has to be a trol post...

After 12 years of using illegal drugs, you haven't figured out how NOT to get caught? are you figuring it out yet?