Really Ticked Off

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


infoman
Senior Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby infoman » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:07 am

Right or wrong, I’m just stating a fact. DPS does & has denied for many applicants who have misdemeanor assault convictions permanently when the victim is a spouse. this includes misdemeanor A, B or C. This has to do with the Brady Bill I believe. Simple Assault and/or Assault by Contact (Misd C) are permanently disqualifying if convicted & victim is wife. it’s just that simple. This is also why TX DPS sends letters to those who have Misdemeanor Assaults (well over 5 Years Old) asking for the offense report. They have to have written proof of who the victim was for each Assault they find on soneone’s record. (when convicted)

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 5368
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby Liberty » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:44 am

What is the legal definition of assault?
I thought assault and battery was when someone was actually beaten up
Simple assault was just a lot of yelling screaming and threats.
How could this be domestic violence?
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy


infoman
Senior Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby infoman » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:13 am

“Assault by threat” is what you’re describing. Simple Assault can & usually is physical.

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 5368
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby Liberty » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:19 am

infoman wrote:“Assault by threat” is what you’re describing. Simple Assault can & usually is physical.

I thought that once it got physical it was assault and battery? Is there a difference between "simple assault" and "assault and battery"?
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts: 17561
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby Keith B » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:48 am

Liberty wrote:
infoman wrote:“Assault by threat” is what you’re describing. Simple Assault can & usually is physical.

I thought that once it got physical it was assault and battery? Is there a difference between "simple assault" and "assault and battery"?


You are correct that there is a difference in the two.

If you want to get technical, there really is no such thing as "assault and battery", they are separate things. Assault is when someone threatens another with imminent bodily injury, while battery is the act of actual bodily contact, either offensive or with the intent to cause injury. Many states like Texas only have assault listed in the statute, with the battery portion (listed as bodily injury) included in the same charge.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4


infoman
Senior Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby infoman » Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:39 am

Correct- most other states list the charge as “Assault & Battery”, however Texas will have the charges as- “Assault causes bodily injury, Assault by Contact, Simple Assault or just simply Assault. They can range from Misd A, B or C. You also come across “Assault by Threat”- this is the one that is not physical. If an Assault is felony level it will be listed as “Aggravated Assault”. Again, if someone is convicted of: Simple Assault or Assault by Contact in Texas, (Misdemeanor C) & the victim is the wife- that IS a permanent disqualifier for LTC purposes. *my own personal opinion is I think that’s a good thing. (I’m maybe a bit biased being I grew up with this kind of thing)


cmgee67
Senior Member
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby cmgee67 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:01 am

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.
I Am Freedoms Safest Place :txflag:

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby ScottDLS » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:18 am

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. :???:
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

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby ScottDLS » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:26 am

infoman wrote:Right or wrong, I’m just stating a fact. DPS does & has denied for many applicants who have misdemeanor assault convictions permanently when the victim is a spouse. this includes misdemeanor A, B or C. This has to do with the Brady Bill I believe. Simple Assault and/or Assault by Contact (Misd C) are permanently disqualifying if convicted & victim is wife. it’s just that simple. This is also why TX DPS sends letters to those who have Misdemeanor Assaults (well over 5 Years Old) asking for the offense report. They have to have written proof of who the victim was for each Assault they find on soneone’s record. (when convicted)


There is a considerable amount of case law regarding the Brady Bill at the federal level, and judging from the limited information that we have, it appears that the OP's offense is not considered "domestic violence" under the Brady Bill and even by the state guidelines. There is a DV code in the record of convictions in Texas and apparently it was not entered because the crime that the OP was convicted of did not include the elements. At the federal level the key if "use of physical force or threatened use of physical force". It is possible to be guilty of a class C assault without containing that element. Since OP lawyer encouraged him to plead to this, I believe it was likely because it wasn't considered DV. None of us really know, but it sounds like DPS is not following the rulings of the district judge.
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!!!!"


BBYC
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby BBYC » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:21 pm

From time to time, I see posts on gun forums by people who followed their lawyer's advice and, as a result, are not eligible for a license to carry. Often it's the difference between how the feds and DPS treat deferred adjudication. That's not the case here but point being it can be legal for somebody to purchase and own firearms, but not be able to get a LTC.
Keep your powder dry.


infoman
Senior Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby infoman » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:22 pm

If he was charged & convicted of “Simple Assault” in Texas I’d bet the farm that there was some type of physical contact described in the official offense report from the arresting agency. Clearly a wife is considered family violence. I think this one is cut & dry.


flechero
Senior Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby flechero » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:25 pm

infoman wrote: Clearly a wife is considered family violence. I think this one is cut & dry.


Maybe not. You can get into an altercation with a relative and it not be considered domestic or family violence... as it was explained to me, there is another element (usually control or repetition) that make it "domestic violence".

I'm not taking a side- just pointing out a possible difference.


GreenMan0352
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Denver city

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby GreenMan0352 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:04 pm

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.


Its really easy to point a finger at someone without being in their shoes huh? I've never hit a woman and I'm against it but that comment has no place here. One mistake doesn't define this person if we are going off of morals. The fact of the matter is we aren't we are going off of the law. If the law says he can then he should be able to plain and simple. If your ability to have a LTC was based on moral character alone there would be a whole lot less people with them.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:12 pm

GreenMan0352 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.


Its really easy to point a finger at someone without being in their shoes huh? I've never hit a woman and I'm against it but that comment has no place here. One mistake doesn't define this person if we are going off of morals. The fact of the matter is we aren't we are going off of the law. If the law says he can then he should be able to plain and simple. If your ability to have a LTC was based on moral character alone there would be a whole lot less people with them.


:iagree: IMHO, we would be better off on this site if we stuck to the law when answering legal questions.

By cmgee67's standards, every woman I have ever dated would be prohibited from having an LTC. I wouldn't, but they all would. Nothing serious, and nothing that I would ever bother LE about, but they have all "laid a hand" on me during an argument. And unlike cmgee67, I think that every one of them should still have the ability to get an LTC.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


infoman
Senior Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

Postby infoman » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:17 pm

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


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hawk44, rtschl and 2 guests