TexasCHLforum.com

So what does this clause mean?

(14) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... 2jv5k.dpuf

I was astonished by your reply, as it contradicted what I have long assumed, or imagined. It's too bad. I think it is bad law, but no matter.

I found in googling the website of E. G. Morris, a lawyer in Austin. It looks like Mr. Morris has the answer to quite a few of your questions on his website, and might be a good resource to speak to about the others.

TheGasManII wrote:So what does this clause mean?

(14) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... 2jv5k.dpuf

IANAL, but I don't believe that this is the latest law.

JALLEN wrote:I was astonished by your reply, as it contradicted what I have long assumed, or imagined. It's too bad. I think it is bad law, but no matter.

I found in googling the website of E. G. Morris, a lawyer in Austin. It looks like Mr. Morris has the answer to quite a few of your questions on his website, and might be a good resource to speak to about the others.

I agree that E.G. Morris would be a good resource.

JALLEN wrote:I was astonished by your reply, as it contradicted what I have long assumed, or imagined. It's too bad. I think it is bad law, but no matter.

I found in googling the website of E. G. Morris, a lawyer in Austin. It looks like Mr. Morris has the answer to quite a few of your questions on his website, and might be a good resource to speak to about the others.

Thanks on the Morris lead.

But I'm not really sure how to take the rest of your reply.

Do you think that someone who committed a felony 30 years ago should still be held to the same restraints today?

What are you trying to say?

I also think you are ineligible to get a CHL, not sure how your buying firearms at all but I am not up on federal law. I would suggest you get a copy of your conviction and see what it actually says. I also believe that for non violent felonies there should be a fall off date(as in it falls off your records) but it doesn't. Also did you petition a court to have your rights reinstated? if so that nay be why you can purchase firearms

TheGasManII wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I was astonished by your reply, as it contradicted what I have long assumed, or imagined. It's too bad. I think it is bad law, but no matter.

I found in googling the website of E. G. Morris, a lawyer in Austin. It looks like Mr. Morris has the answer to quite a few of your questions on his website, and might be a good resource to speak to about the others.

Thanks on the Morris lead.

But I'm not really sure how to take the rest of your reply.

Do you think that someone who committed a felony 30 years ago should still be held to the same restraints today?

What are you trying to say?

There is no reason for uncertainty.

Conviction of a felony should bar civil rights for life, no voting, no guns, no position of trust or profit, etc. A felon can have served his or her time, but is never restored to full rights, or trust.

A felony is a serious crime, and it's not THAT hard to go through one's entire long life without once committing one. There has to be some disadvantage to messing up that badly.

Now, you will be tempted to reply with some story about your situation and why my view is too harsh. Spare me. I'm sorry you did it, but residential burglary? C'mon, man! One strike and you're out. This isn't life in prison, just no respectability, or rights. Intentional knowing bad conduct needs to be dealt with seriously, with consequences.

There are 3 lawyers of my acquaintence in San Diego who were convicted of rather serious, albeit non-violent, crimes and disbarred. They each served whatever sentence was meted out and after 5 years, were reinstated as lawyers. This is ridiculous, like it never even happened!

Another situation that irritates me to no end is that of the former U.S. District Court Judge who was impeached, for taking a bribe, convicted in the Senate and removed from the bench. He was never criminally convicted, because the other party could not be made to testify against him. Alcee Hastings is now in his 22nd year as a Congressman, for crying out loud!

It's not the law, but it is what I would support.

JP171 wrote:I also think you are ineligible to get a CHL, not sure how your buying firearms at all but I am not up on federal law. I would suggest you get a copy of your conviction and see what it actually says. I also believe that for non violent felonies there should be a fall off date(as in it falls off your records) but it doesn't. Also did you petition a court to have your rights reinstated? if so that nay be why you can purchase firearms

No, I did not petition the court. But from the EG Morris website I found the judge may have done it at his discretion.

I am still curious about this sub section of the current law.

(13) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been
adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of
the grade of felony

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetf ... CHL-16.pdf

What is your take on that?

JALLEN wrote:

TheGasManII wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I was astonished by your reply, as it contradicted what I have long assumed, or imagined. It's too bad. I think it is bad law, but no matter.

I found in googling the website of E. G. Morris, a lawyer in Austin. It looks like Mr. Morris has the answer to quite a few of your questions on his website, and might be a good resource to speak to about the others.

Thanks on the Morris lead.

But I'm not really sure how to take the rest of your reply.

Do you think that someone who committed a felony 30 years ago should still be held to the same restraints today?

What are you trying to say?

There is no reason for uncertainty.

Conviction of a felony should bar civil rights for life, no voting, no guns, no position of trust or profit, etc. A felon can have served his or her time, but is never restored to full rights, or trust.

A felony is a serious crime, and it's not THAT hard to go through one's entire long life without once committing one. There has to be some disadvantage to messing up that badly.

Now, you will be tempted to reply with some story about your situation and why my view is too harsh. Spare me. I'm sorry you did it, but residential burglary? C'mon, man! One strike and you're out. This isn't life in prison, just no respectability, or rights. Intentional knowing bad conduct needs to be dealt with seriously, with consequences.

There are 3 lawyers of my acquaintence in San Diego who were convicted of rather serious, albeit non-violent, crimes and disbarred. They each served whatever sentence was meted out and after 5 years, were reinstated as lawyers. This is ridiculous, like it never even happened!

Another situation that irritates me to no end is that of the former U.S. District Court Judge who was impeached, for taking a bribe, convicted in the Senate and removed from the bench. He was never criminally convicted, because the other party could not be made to testify against him. Alcee Hastings is now in his 22nd year as a Congressman, for crying out loud!

It's not the law, but it is what I would support.

No, I won't bore you with my story. You are right, ones actions should have consequences, to an extent.

I don't think that one should be subject to life long disrespect and shame to a incident that happened 30 years ago and minor in nature.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

JALLEN wrote:Conviction of a felony should bar civil rights for life, no voting, no guns, no position of trust or profit, etc. A felon can have served his or her time, but is never restored to full rights, or trust.

A felony is a serious crime, and it's not THAT hard to go through one's entire long life without once committing one. There has to be some disadvantage to messing up that badly.

Why should a man convicted of a crime who completes his sentence as determined by laws approved by the citizens and their legislatures not be afforded the same constitutional rights as any other man?

He was guilty. He was sentenced. He completed the sentence. Now he's (or should be) a citizen like anyone else. I can't find in the constitution where it says "All men (except prior felons) are created equal."

mreed911 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Conviction of a felony should bar civil rights for life, no voting, no guns, no position of trust or profit, etc. A felon can have served his or her time, but is never restored to full rights, or trust.

A felony is a serious crime, and it's not THAT hard to go through one's entire long life without once committing one. There has to be some disadvantage to messing up that badly.

Why should a man convicted of a crime who completes his sentence as determined by laws approved by the citizens and their legislatures not be afforded the same constitutional rights as any other man?

He was guilty. He was sentenced. He completed the sentence. Now he's (or should be) a citizen like anyone else. I can't find in the constitution where it says "All men (except prior felons) are created equal."

What does completing a sentence have to do with it? The convict is forever a convict. Moreover, commission of a serious crime as a felony denotes a disrespect for society that is not likely or often dissipated by conviction and completion of sentence. We know this from the unacceptably high rates of recidivism. Why can it not be that sentencing for a felony includes that life time taint, like it used to.

I can't find in the Constitution where it says "all men are created equal." In fact, that line does not appear. Nowhere in any document does it require that all men remain equal. If you disgrace yourself you will get the treatment provided by law, the same as everyone else similarly situated.

That notion is not a statement of physical fact, but a legal presumption requiring equal treatment in the same circumstances, so all felons should be treated equally, as felons.

TheGasManII wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

TheGasManII wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I was astonished by your reply, as it contradicted what I have long assumed, or imagined. It's too bad. I think it is bad law, but no matter.

I found in googling the website of E. G. Morris, a lawyer in Austin. It looks like Mr. Morris has the answer to quite a few of your questions on his website, and might be a good resource to speak to about the others.

Thanks on the Morris lead.

But I'm not really sure how to take the rest of your reply.

Do you think that someone who committed a felony 30 years ago should still be held to the same restraints today?

What are you trying to say?

There is no reason for uncertainty.

Conviction of a felony should bar civil rights for life, no voting, no guns, no position of trust or profit, etc. A felon can have served his or her time, but is never restored to full rights, or trust.

A felony is a serious crime, and it's not THAT hard to go through one's entire long life without once committing one. There has to be some disadvantage to messing up that badly.

Now, you will be tempted to reply with some story about your situation and why my view is too harsh. Spare me. I'm sorry you did it, but residential burglary? C'mon, man! One strike and you're out. This isn't life in prison, just no respectability, or rights. Intentional knowing bad conduct needs to be dealt with seriously, with consequences.

There are 3 lawyers of my acquaintence in San Diego who were convicted of rather serious, albeit non-violent, crimes and disbarred. They each served whatever sentence was meted out and after 5 years, were reinstated as lawyers. This is ridiculous, like it never even happened!

Another situation that irritates me to no end is that of the former U.S. District Court Judge who was impeached, for taking a bribe, convicted in the Senate and removed from the bench. He was never criminally convicted, because the other party could not be made to testify against him. Alcee Hastings is now in his 22nd year as a Congressman, for crying out loud!

It's not the law, but it is what I would support.

No, I won't bore you with my story. You are right, ones actions should have consequences, to an extent.

I don't think that one should be subject to life long disrespect and shame to a incident that happened 30 years ago and minor in nature.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

Thank you.

A residential burglary is not "minor in nature." That it is a felony denotes society's opinion that it is not minor, with which I fully agree.

TheGasManII wrote:I am still curious about this sub section of the current law.

(13) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been
adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of
the grade of felony

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetf ... CHL-16.pdf

What is your take on that?

That section of the law refers to juveniles convicted in juvenile court. Technically, juveniles are not convicted of any crime in Texas except delinquent conduct. The underlying charges, such as burglary, are kept on record and this is an attempt to keep juveniles who have committed felonies from escaping the CHL penalty merely because they were juveniles.

Since you were certified as an adult, it would not apply to your case.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I suggest you contact a lawyer and get both your actual conviction records and the official records from the end of your parole. It may actually turn out that you cannot legally own a firearm and your name has fallen through the cracks on the background checks. I would hate to see you arrested when you thought you were obeying the law.

The phrase "all men are created equal" is found in the Declaration of Independence.

To me, this is the question. Does one remain equal if they chose to commit a felony or do they relinquish some of that equality once convicted?

I would think that if someone has lived "a good and sober life" for 30 years, there should be someway to forgive their original sin. I suspect there is some legal means to clear the record. I know a pardon can clear a record.