Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

cprems
Senior Member
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by cprems »

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.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar
jbarn
Senior Member
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:50 am
Location: South Texas

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by jbarn »

cprems wrote:What is the Federal definition of 'conviction"?
Deferreds are not.
Does it mean tried and convicted (no deferred adjudication)? I know under Texas law that DA's are considered convictions and treated as such.
Only for certain and specific purposes they are.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
User avatar
nightmare
Deactivated until real name is provided
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:09 pm

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by nightmare »

Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd bet :cheers2: it's still a conviction.
Equo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
User avatar
WildBill
Senior Member
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by WildBill »

nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd bet :cheers2: it's still a conviction.
IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.
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. :tiphat:
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar
jbarn
Senior Member
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:50 am
Location: South Texas

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by jbarn »

WildBill wrote:
nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd bet :cheers2: it's still a conviction.
IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.
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. :tiphat:

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)
User avatar
WildBill
Senior Member
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by WildBill »

jbarn wrote:
WildBill wrote:
nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd bet :cheers2: it's still a conviction.
IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.
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. :tiphat:
The burden of proof in civil is simply a preponderance of the evidence. Less than criminal.

If I misread you, sorry.
You misread me. :tiphat:

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
User avatar
jbarn
Senior Member
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:50 am
Location: South Texas

Re: Yet ANOTHER eligibility question

Post by jbarn »

WildBill wrote:
jbarn wrote:
WildBill wrote:
nightmare wrote:Nolo Contendere is not an admission of guilt but I'd bet :cheers2: it's still a conviction.
IANAL so I don't understand all of the legalities of a nolo contendere plea.
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. :tiphat:
The burden of proof in civil is simply a preponderance of the evidence. Less than criminal.

If I misread you, sorry.
You misread me. :tiphat:

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.

:cheers2:
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”