Really Ticked Off

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


1911 10MM
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Really Ticked Off

#31

Post by 1911 10MM »

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 in topic: 3
Posts: 2046
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Really Ticked Off

#32

Post by nightmare69 »

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 in topic: 2
Posts: 1914
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:45 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

#33

Post by cmgee67 »

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.

infoman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

#34

Post by infoman »

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.

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2717
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

#35

Post by parabelum »

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.
User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Really Ticked Off

#36

Post by bblhd672 »

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:
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager

BBYC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

#37

Post by BBYC »

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.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Really Ticked Off

#38

Post by ScottDLS »

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!!!!"

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2717
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Really Ticked Off

#39

Post by parabelum »

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.
User avatar

Captain Matt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: blue water

Re: Really Ticked Off

#40

Post by Captain Matt »

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 in topic: 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 8:30 am

Re: Really Ticked Off

#41

Post by K9Texas »

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 in topic: 1
Posts: 5025
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: Really Ticked Off

#42

Post by RPBrown »

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

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Really Ticked Off

#43

Post by mojo84 »

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
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8400
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Really Ticked Off

#44

Post by Abraham »

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 in topic: 4
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Really Ticked Off

#45

Post by mojo84 »

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.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”