What is the Federal definition of 'conviction"?
Does it mean tried and convicted (no deferred adjudication)? I know under Texas law that DA's are considered convictions and treated as such. This was a ticket, a class C at that. Is the ticket reported since it was a class C?
This is an interesting discussion. OP, I hope everything works in your favor. It might be best to pay for a hour of time with competent Counsel who is well versed in firearms law.
Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
Deferreds are not.cprems wrote:What is the Federal definition of 'conviction"?
Only for certain and specific purposes they are.Does it mean tried and convicted (no deferred adjudication)? I know under Texas law that DA's are considered convictions and treated as such.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd bet
it's still a conviction.

Equo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd betit's still a conviction.
My understanding is that a nolo contendere plea can not be used as an admission of guilt in a civil trial.
So in a civil trial the burden of proof is greater to award damages.
If you plead nolo contendere, it is a conviction.
IMO, a judge can not legally [or morally] sentence a person for a crime who pleads not guilty, unless that person was actually found guilty in a trial.
I think that the nolo contendere plea is a legal way around that dilemma.

NRA Endowment Member
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
WildBill wrote:IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd betit's still a conviction.
My understanding is that a nolo contendere plea can not be used as an admission of guilt in a civil trial.
So in a civil trial the burden of proof is greater to award damages.
If you plead nolo contendere, it is a conviction.
IMO, a judge can not legally [or morally] sentence a person for a crime who pleads not guilty, unless that person was actually found guilty in a trial.
I think that the nolo contendere plea is a legal way around that dilemma.
The burden of proof in civil is simply a preponderance of the evidence. Less than criminal.
If I misread you, sorry.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
You misread me.jbarn wrote:The burden of proof in civil is simply a preponderance of the evidence. Less than criminal.WildBill wrote:IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd betit's still a conviction.
My understanding is that a nolo contendere plea can not be used as an admission of guilt in a civil trial.
So in a civil trial the burden of proof is greater to award damages.
If you plead nolo contendere, it is a conviction.
IMO, a judge can not legally [or morally] sentence a person for a crime who pleads not guilty, unless that person was actually found guilty in a trial.
I think that the nolo contendere plea is a legal way around that dilemma.
If I misread you, sorry.

A summary of my thoughts:
In a civil case, it is usually easier for a plaintiff to obtain a judgment against a defendant who plead guilty to a crime than one who plead nolo contendere.
NRA Endowment Member
Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question
WildBill wrote:You misread me.jbarn wrote:The burden of proof in civil is simply a preponderance of the evidence. Less than criminal.WildBill wrote:IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd betit's still a conviction.
My understanding is that a nolo contendere plea can not be used as an admission of guilt in a civil trial.
So in a civil trial the burden of proof is greater to award damages.
If you plead nolo contendere, it is a conviction.
IMO, a judge can not legally [or morally] sentence a person for a crime who pleads not guilty, unless that person was actually found guilty in a trial.
I think that the nolo contendere plea is a legal way around that dilemma.
If I misread you, sorry.
A summary of my thoughts:
In a civil case, it is usually easier for a plaintiff to obtain a judgment against a defendant who plead guilty to a crime than one who plead nolo contendere.

Texas CHL Instructor
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)