CHL Renewal and "Misdemeanor", "Family Violence"

[MagnumPI]

What does it mean for a CHL Renewal and Class A, and Class B, "Misdemeanor, of "Family Violence" ?

[paulhailes]

Welcome to the forum,

It's a Class C so I think you are good.

[G.A. Heath]

IF "Family Violence" equates to the federal definition of "Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence" then I hate to say this, but you need to talk to a lawyer and ensure you are not around your guns because you may have lost your Second Amendment Rights. In fact by possessing a firearm you would be committing a Federal Felony. I do not know if they equate or not, but a lawyer is your best bet to be sure.

[paulhailes]

A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that:
is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law;
has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
However, a person is not considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless:
the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right of counsel in the case; and
in the case of a prosecution for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either —
the case was tried by a jury, or
the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
In addition, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held provides for the loss of civil rights upon conviction for such an offense) unless the pardon, expunction, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, and the person is not otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing firearms.
[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33), 27 CFR 478.11]

[gigag04]

Yeah...afaik you fall under the fed laws....

Was it assault by threat or unwanted contact?

[Kythas]

Why were you charged? Did the argument get physical?

If it didn't get physical, just having an argument with your SO is now considered a crime, and one so heinous that you lose your Second Amendment rights? If that's true, there's not a person alive in this country who would be allowed to own a gun as I would say we have all, at one time or another, had an argument with our SO.

[G.A. Heath]

The issue is that he pled guilty to "Family Violence". Just having an argument with your SO is not a basis for loosing your rights. In fact, being arrested for getting a little loud with your SO is not a basis for loosing your rights. Actually being convicted, or pleading guilty, is a basis for loosing your rights.

[MoJo]

You need to get a really good attorney. Because of that guilty plea, by federal law you cannot even handle a firearm. By State law you can not have a CHL. Do not hesitate the next place you might be living will be a federal correctional facility. Domestic violence charges are BIG TROUBLE!

[AEA]

Why was his current CHL not revoked once he was found guilty?

[Jumping Frog]

and charged me with a "Class C Misdemeanor", of "Family Violence".

This is an example where it matters (really matters a lot) the exact charge you pled guilty to. Right down to the paragraph level.

If the statute language you were convicted under includes either the use of force or the threatened use of force against a person who qualifies as a domestic violence victim (spouse, child, etc.), then you have lost your firearms rights altogether. Since a federal firearms felony is obviously serious, you simply have to clarify this with an attorney who understands federal firearms law.

People with opinions on the internet may or may not steer you the right way, but we can at least alert you that this is a major league, big deal, life changing risk that you simply must get clarification on.

What exact statute and specification does your paperwork say?

[G.A. Heath]

Just as I (in my first post to this thread) and MoJo have said, TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. I freely admit that I lack the knowledge and/or skill set required to help you beyond that statement, so take the advice and at least consider it.

[Running Arrow Bill]

IANAL ! Just IMO...

My feeling is that anyone who feels it necessary to get physical with another person for whatever "not nice reason" is someone who ultimately has a short fuse... There are many ways to avoid such encounters. When it comes to firearms, IMO, anyone who has committed DUI, DWI (more than once), assaulted anyone, threatened anyone, been arrested for illegal drugs, been an instigator of "road rage", destruction of property of others, spousal or partner abuse, and any other "crimes" probably has no business having access to firearms. Any individual who has a serious "chip on their shoulder", bullies, or pushes others around (literally or figuratively) is also someone who may resort to "not nice" behavior.

I'm sure I'll take some hits and flak over my comments. However, I personally in all my 73 years have never had to get physical with anyone, threaten anyone, much less be arrested for any alleged event. Now...if someone is shooting at me, or otherwise attacking me...well, that's another matter... :)

[Jumping Frog]

My feeling is that anyone who feels it necessary to get physical with another person for whatever "not nice reason" is someone who ultimately has a short fuse...

I understand your point. However, seeing as you are 73 years old, you have seen enough to know that many (not all) people people grow up and mature.

My issue with the Lautenberg Amendment is that it permanently disqualifies people from firearms ownership for misdemeanors.

If I am 21 years old, lose my temper during an argument with a live-in girlfriend, and yell at her, "I ought to slap you!", that is sufficient under the current law to lose my firearms rights forever.

Personally, I was a lot more hot-headed at age 21, but I grew up. Now that I am in my 50's, there are situations that would roll off my back like water that would have been darn near "fighting words" at age 21. It is ridiculous to have a life-long sentence attached to misdemeanor behavior. Make no mistake, this was a bad law slipped through by one of the most vicious anti-gunners in the Congress. It is NOT a good law.

[MoJo]

My feeling is that anyone who feels it necessary to get physical with another person for whatever "not nice reason" is someone who ultimately has a short fuse...

I understand your point. However, seeing as you are 73 years old, you have seen enough to know that many (not all) people people grow up and mature.

My issue with the Lautenberg Amendment is that it permanently disqualifies people from firearms ownership for misdemeanors.

If I am 21 years old, lose my temper during an argument with a live-in girlfriend, and yell at her, "I ought to slap you!", that is sufficient under the current law to lose my firearms rights forever.

Personally, I was a lot more hot-headed at age 21, but I grew up. Now that I am in my 50's, there are situations that would roll off my back like water that would have been darn near "fighting words" at age 21. It is ridiculous to have a life-long sentence attached to misdemeanor behavior. Make no mistake, this was a bad law slipped through by one of the most vicious anti-gunners in the Congress. It is NOT a good law.

No it is not a good law, - - - good, bad or just ugly it IS the law. Military, and LEOs have lost their jobs because of this. It needs to be repealed.

[Heartland Patriot]

My feeling is that anyone who feels it necessary to get physical with another person for whatever "not nice reason" is someone who ultimately has a short fuse...

I understand your point. However, seeing as you are 73 years old, you have seen enough to know that many (not all) people people grow up and mature.

My issue with the Lautenberg Amendment is that it permanently disqualifies people from firearms ownership for misdemeanors.

If I am 21 years old, lose my temper during an argument with a live-in girlfriend, and yell at her, "I ought to slap you!", that is sufficient under the current law to lose my firearms rights forever.

Personally, I was a lot more hot-headed at age 21, but I grew up. Now that I am in my 50's, there are situations that would roll off my back like water that would have been darn near "fighting words" at age 21. It is ridiculous to have a life-long sentence attached to misdemeanor behavior. Make no mistake, this was a bad law slipped through by one of the most vicious anti-gunners in the Congress. It is NOT a good law.

If I lied and said that my loving wife (of almost 20 years) and I had never had an argument over the course of those 20 years, then I would be a bold-faced liar. I think it matters a great deal in the exact circumstances of the "domestic dispute". The example given above is a pretty good one, I think. However, a man beating a woman, totally different story, put them under the jail if you have to. I'm generally against the "shades of gray" argument in a lot of cases, but in close personal relationships those shades most certainly exist...and that law does NOTHING to allow for it in the least, AND IT DOES SO ON PURPOSE. Most LEOs that I know of HATE going to any Domestic call because of the wide variety of situations and the unpredictable nature of them. Besides, does anyone not remember the old phrase "Hades hath no fury like a woman scorned"? And then some court is supposed to make a life-changing decision off of a he said/she said...simply ridiculous. As far as the OP's situation, contacting a lawyer is the ONLY smart course of action on this one...