Really Ticked Off

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


1911 10MM
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby 1911 10MM » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:04 pm

infoman wrote:I have an excellent inside source, & everything I’ve posted on here is accurate as to what Tx DPS does deny for.


You have made your position clear and it hasn’t changed in the last 8 posts. Do we really need to read it again?

User avatar

nightmare69
Senior Member
Posts: 2013
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby nightmare69 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:18 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
cmgee67 wrote:I’m sorry but you shouldn’t get your LTC if you assaulted your wife. I don’t care how mad someone gets. If you lay a hand on your wife you wouldn’t be worth my time in a court room.


Why should anyone be disqualified federally for a misdemeanor. If the crime is so serious it should be classified as a felony. As you've seen described above "assault" could be yelling at someone or moving aggressively. Hardly seems like a comparison to most felonies. :???:


If the victim has bodily injury then it’s an assault. Good rule of thumb if the victim needs medical attention and or a band aid. An example of assault by contact is you push someone. You made contact with them but didn’t cause any bodily injury. Yelling moving aggressively is an example of disorderly conduct.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.


cmgee67
Senior Member
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby cmgee67 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:53 pm

I realize that my statement was broad. He never specified on what exactly happened so all we have is what we can imagine. Usually when someone is charged with assault against their spouse it’s a good indication something physical happened. While I don’t know the OP I was simply stating that if he did in fact hurt her and she felt she needed to file assault charges then to me that’s domestic violence and I would never grant LTC. I am not a lawyer or a judge and I am glad I am not. Now the flip Side of the coin could be He didn’t do a thing but she claims he did and it’s her word against his so who’s the judge and jury goin to most likely believe? Her. So he may not even be guilty. I will not apologize for my comment. No need. Also if a lot of decisions were made off of character we’d be in a lot better place. But character in today’s world means diddly. You can’t get by with just a handshake anymore.
I Am Freedoms Safest Place :txflag:


infoman
Senior Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby infoman » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:17 am

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-r ... -convicted

I think all too often people post here to try & sway others that they are eligible, when in fact they are not. The link above specifically tells us that his conviction of simple assault on a spouse is permanently disqualying. (whether Misd A, B or C). The actual title of the charge doesn’t specifically have to say “Assault- Domestic Violence”, it just has to have the elements of family violence as described in link above. if he so much as laid a finger on a spouse (or plead guilty to doing so), it fits this category.

User avatar

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby parabelum » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:48 am

OP,

I hope you get your issue resolved.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus,
“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:3-7‬

Be careful infecting the discussion with extreme prejudice, details we do not know, nor will we on this public forum I suppose.

All I can say is that catching a dv is not as difficult as one thinks, nor does there have to exist notable injury etc. for dv to apply.

One day it could be you.
III%

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts: 2706
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby bblhd672 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:02 am

parabelum wrote:OP,

I hope you get your issue resolved.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus,
“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:3-7‬

Be careful infecting the discussion with extreme prejudice, details we do not know, nor will we on this public forum I suppose.

All I can say is that catching a dv is not as difficult as one thinks, nor does there have to exist notable injury etc. for dv to apply.

One day it could be you.

:iagree:
NRA Life Member, TSRA Member
“What ‘gun law’ would have prevented the Sutherland Springs church massacre? Or the Las Vegas massacre?"


BBYC
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby BBYC » Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:03 pm

This has been an interesting discussion but it seems DPS is in a position to know a lot more about the assault than we do. They think he's not eligible. They are so convinced of it, based on their access to court records of the assault conviction, they're taking it to the court of appeals instead of issuing the LTC.

I'm curious what details you saw in the court records that convinced so many of you that DPS is wrong.
Keep your powder dry.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby ScottDLS » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:32 pm

BBYC wrote:This has been an interesting discussion but it seems DPS is in a position to know a lot more about the assault than we do. They think he's not eligible. They are so convinced of it, based on their access to court records of the assault conviction, they're taking it to the court of appeals instead of issuing the LTC.

I'm curious what details you saw in the court records that convinced so many of you that DPS is wrong.


Maybe the same thing the county district judge saw? :biggrinjester:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby parabelum » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:30 pm

Question is, does anyone think that preventing someone like OP to legally carry firearm for life would deter him to harm someone?

If the plan is to hurt someone, do you really need LTC or something equivalent to carry the act?

Just wondering, in interest of public safety and such.
III%

User avatar

Captain Matt
Senior Member
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: blue water

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby Captain Matt » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:41 pm

parabelum wrote:If the plan is to hurt someone, do you really need LTC or something equivalent to carry the act?

Just wondering, in interest of public safety and such.

It makes a person wonder why the police organizations were really opposed to the unlicensed carry bill this year, doesn't it?
"hic sunt dracones"


K9Texas
Junior Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 8:30 am

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby K9Texas » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:48 am

Here is why this is such a big deal for DPS. THE BRADY BILL. Keep in mind that those with a Texas LTC do not go through the FBI background check when buying a gun anyplace in Texas..... This is pretty cut and dry. IF the OP can walk into a gun store tomorrow, PASS the FBI background check and purchase a gun, he has a legitimate argument to be issued a LTC. IF HE CAN'T PASS THE FBI BACKGROUND CHECK then he has zero chance of getting a LTC in Texas. Plain and simple It all comes down to BRADY and how the FBI classifies his arrest/conviction. Hope the info helps.
:patriot: God Bless These United States of America :patriot:

User avatar

RPBrown
Senior Member
Posts: 4001
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby RPBrown » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:55 am

Me thinks we had a troll in our midst. The OP has had exactly 3 posts and all 3 were the first day.
NRA-Life member
TSRA-Life member
Image

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby mojo84 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:12 am

I know this thread has gone quiet and the OP has probably moved on. However, I found this informative.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/must-mi ... 9D-offense


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts: 6981
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby Abraham » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:21 am

If a person is denied an LTC, can they still (or not) carry in their vehicle per the MPA?

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby mojo84 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:28 am

Abraham wrote:If a person is denied an LTC, can they still (or not) carry in their vehicle per the MPA?


It depends on why he was denied. He can not if he is prohibited from purchasing, owning or possessing a gun. If he is allowed to own or possess a handgun, I don't see why he couldn't keep one in his vehicle.


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FrogFan, Mel and 5 guests