TexasCHLforum.com

Well here's the answer for all of us who were asking "but what about the gun charges?"

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/Billy-Joe- ... harge.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shaver entered a no-contest plea to a Class A misdemeanor charge of unlawfully carrying a weapon in a March 2007 incident at Papa Joe’s Saloon near Lorena in which Shaver shot Billy Coker in the face.

Prosecutor Mark Parker reduced a third-degree felony charge of carrying a pistol by a licensed person in a licensed premises to the misdemeanor count. The plea agreement with Shaver also called for him to forfeit the Derringer-style, .22-caliber pistol he used to shoot Coker.

Retired State District Judge George Allen also fined Shaver $1,000 as part of the plea agreement.

Shaver’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, of Houston, said the Grammy-nominated Central Texas artist accepted the plea deal because “he just wanted to get it over with and put it all behind him.”

So haven't had time to look this up in statutes yet, will this plea agreement and accepting this Class A misdemeanor cause him to lose his CHL? It definitely kept him out of jail, but I'd be surprised if he gets to keep the CHL.

They took his pistol, which I don't understand; did they want it for sentimental value? Are they going to auction it off on Gunbroker to pay for trial costs? Probably would fetch more on the open market than scalpers are getting for autographed Rick Perry "Coyote Special" Rugers.

Or maybe they'll turn it in at the next Austin police guns-for-groceries program

austinrealtor wrote:Well here's the answer for all of us who were asking "but what about the gun charges?"

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/Billy-Joe- ... harge.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shaver entered a no-contest plea to a Class A misdemeanor charge of unlawfully carrying a weapon in a March 2007 incident at Papa Joe’s Saloon near Lorena in which Shaver shot Billy Coker in the face.

Prosecutor Mark Parker reduced a third-degree felony charge of carrying a pistol by a licensed person in a licensed premises to the misdemeanor count. The plea agreement with Shaver also called for him to forfeit the Derringer-style, .22-caliber pistol he used to shoot Coker.

Retired State District Judge George Allen also fined Shaver $1,000 as part of the plea agreement.

Shaver’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, of Houston, said the Grammy-nominated Central Texas artist accepted the plea deal because “he just wanted to get it over with and put it all behind him.”

So haven't had time to look this up in statutes yet, will this plea agreement and accepting this Class A misdemeanor cause him to lose his CHL? It definitely kept him out of jail, but I'd be surprised if he gets to keep the CHL.

They took his pistol, which I don't understand; did they want it for sentimental value? Are they going to auction it off on Gunbroker to pay for trial costs? Probably would fetch more on the open market than scalpers are getting for autographed Rick Perry "Coyote Special" Rugers.

Or maybe they'll turn it in at the next Austin police guns-for-groceries program

A Class A UCW charge should cause his CHL to be revoked by DPS.

Shaver’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, of Houston, said the Grammy-nominated Central Texas artist ...

I hope nobody thinks that Good-Ol'-Boy Jones from Nacogdoches who can't afford a lawyer like Mr. DeGuerin would get off this easy.

IANAL, etc., but I would think the no-contest plea and probation would mean no CHL for the next seven years, unless there is some other expensive legal maneuver available to those who can afford it.

- Jim

Ole Billy Joe won't have a CHL after this. The derringer will most likely be destroyed.

OK, I've done a cursory look at statutes and I agree he's likely going to lose his license.

Follow along with my logic and let me know if you disagree:

1.

Government Code wrote:Sec. 411.186. REVOCATION. (a) The department shall revoke a license under this section if the license holder:

(4) is convicted of an offense under Section 46.035, Penal Code;

2.

Penal Code wrote:Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

(f) In this section:

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony of the third degree.

So basically all the prosecutor did is lower the charge from third-degree felony to Class A misdemeanor and probation. But this still should cause him to lose his license. Included the "premises" info because I think this plea makes it clear that he did have the gun inside the bar at some point and not just in his car and in the parking lot.

Now the gun confiscation, I still don't understand. Would this Class A plea prohibit him from owning a gun (unders state or Federal law) and possessing a gun in his home or car (under MPA)? Or is this just the prosecutor's idiotic way to tell the sheeple "see even though I couldn't put him in prison, I made sure he doesn't have a gun nor a license anymore" ..... meanwhile BJS goes home, grabs another pistol, puts it in his glovebox, and goes on down the road.

This is why I don't go to bars.

Or is this just the prosecutor's idiotic way to tell the sheeple "see even though I couldn't put him in prison, I made sure he doesn't have a gun nor a license anymore"

What's idiotic about it? That is exactly what the prosecutor accomplished at no cost to the state.

Who on this forum would be shedding a tear for Leroy Jenkins or Pedro Gonzalez if said defendant lost his weapon after pleading to carrying in a bar?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Or is this just the prosecutor's idiotic way to tell the sheeple "see even though I couldn't put him in prison, I made sure he doesn't have a gun nor a license anymore"

What's idiotic about it? That is exactly what the prosecutor accomplished at no cost to the state.

Who on this forum would be shedding a tear for Leroy Jenkins or Pedro Gonzalez if said defendant lost his weapon after pleading to carrying in a bar?

- Jim

But the prosecutor didn't accomplish those two goals. Sure his license will be revoked (would've been revoked if he'd been convicted of the felony too, instead of pleaing down to the misdemeanor). But what is accomplished by taking away the one gun? It's not like BJS doesn't have more guns at home or that he can't go buy another gun.

What's idiotic is that it is all for show and doesn't accomplish anything. What possible benefit is there to making BJS turn in that one gun as a condition of the plea agreement? It's just for show.

And yes, I would be saying same thing if it was any other non-celebrity. If this Class A misdemeanor doesn't prohibit a person from owning or buying guns, then why confiscate this one gun? What's the point?

What's idiotic is that it is all for show and doesn't accomplish anything.

Things that are done "for show" accomplish something in the view of whatever percent of the population doesn't think hard (or at all) about these issues.

You never hear about poor ol' Bubba, Leroy, or Pedro. There are something like 4,000 UCW convictions a year in the state, IIRC. I'll bet 90% are plea bargains that involve forfeiting the weapon.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

What's idiotic is that it is all for show and doesn't accomplish anything.

Things that are done "for show" accomplish something in the view of whatever percent of the population doesn't think hard (or at all) about these issues.

You never hear about poor ol' Bubba, Leroy, or Pedro. There are something like 4,000 UCW convictions a year in the state, IIRC. I'll bet 90% are plea bargains that involve forfeiting the weapon.

- Jim

Jim, rather than continue the back n forth, let me just ask .... what are you defending here? Are you saying you think it's a good thing for prosecutors to demand weapon forfeiture in a plea deal just for "show" to the clueless masses? Sure it's probably good for helping the prosecutor keep his job/reputation. But is it good for the state/county/people he has sworn to defend and protect? Not so much, in my view.

And let me state unequivocally that I am on your side regarding the shoddy treatment that the poor Bubbas, Leroys, and Pedros get within our legal system. But I'm not quite understanding the connection here - other than perhaps the prosecutor should've gone for the fully felony conviction of BJS instead of pleaing down to a misdemeanor. If that's the case, I don't disagree accept for perhaps the financial argument that you brought up earlier that the plea deal accomplishes some of the goals (CHL revocation) while saving the taxpayers the expense of a second celebrity trial on the gun charges.

My one and only point is that confiscating the one and only gun accomplishes merely the one and only goal of making the prosecutor "look good" and look like he was tough on ol' BJS. When in fact, as far as I know, BJS can go stick another gun in his glovebox and drive on down the road.

If the prosecutor thinks BJS should not be allowed to have a gun, then he should have pushed for the felony conviction. If the prosecutor thinks it's OK for BJS to have a gun, then he should not have confiscated any gun.

austinrealtor wrote:My one and only point is that confiscating the one and only gun accomplishes merely the one and only goal of making the prosecutor "look good" and look like he was tough on ol' BJS. When in fact, as far as I know, BJS can go stick another gun in his glovebox and drive on down the road.

If the prosecutor thinks BJS should not be allowed to have a gun, then he should have pushed for the felony conviction. If the prosecutor thinks it's OK for BJS to have a gun, then he should not have confiscated any gun.

If BJ didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have taken the deal.

When you're in his shoes you have the right to refuse any deal that doesn't return you gun.

bayouhazard wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:My one and only point is that confiscating the one and only gun accomplishes merely the one and only goal of making the prosecutor "look good" and look like he was tough on ol' BJS. When in fact, as far as I know, BJS can go stick another gun in his glovebox and drive on down the road.

If the prosecutor thinks BJS should not be allowed to have a gun, then he should have pushed for the felony conviction. If the prosecutor thinks it's OK for BJS to have a gun, then he should not have confiscated any gun.

If BJ didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have taken the deal.

When you're in his shoes you have the right to refuse any deal that doesn't return you gun.

Again, not really my point. If BJS is ok with this deal, then good for him. What I'm asking is why - other than to "save face" - would a prosecutor even ask for such a thing?

austinrealtor wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:My one and only point is that confiscating the one and only gun accomplishes merely the one and only goal of making the prosecutor "look good" and look like he was tough on ol' BJS. When in fact, as far as I know, BJS can go stick another gun in his glovebox and drive on down the road.

If the prosecutor thinks BJS should not be allowed to have a gun, then he should have pushed for the felony conviction. If the prosecutor thinks it's OK for BJS to have a gun, then he should not have confiscated any gun.

If BJ didn't like the deal, he shouldn't have taken the deal.

When you're in his shoes you have the right to refuse any deal that doesn't return you gun.

Again, not really my point. If BJS is ok with this deal, then good for him. What I'm asking is why - other than to "save face" - would a prosecutor even ask for such a thing?

Because plea bargains are done all the time. It is not uncommon for them to be willing to accept a nolo contendere in return for a reduction in the deal. There are probably things you are not seeing in the background that are the reason for the forfeiture of the gun. It is also very possible the prosecutor threw out a bargaining deal with the intention of the gun confiscation being a 'gimme' negotiation item and willing to allow him to keep it if they countered the offer, but they took the deal. With a very good lawyer like BJS had, you never know what kind of give/take was going on. I have seen negotiations that have all kinds of things that are just ridiculous in them to try and beef up the list. I am sure as a Realtor you have too. Bottom line, unless you have all the details, you don't know why the forfeiture was in requested or agreed to.

austinrealtor wrote:Jim, rather than continue the back n forth, let me just ask .... what are you defending here?

I'm not defending anything. I'm trying to explain it.

The prosecutor is most likely not "a stoopid liberal who hates guns" -- not in McLennan County (though DA John Segrest is a Democratic). That's a pretty conservative area.

Prosecutors want to punish people who break the law as written. Sending people to jail costs the state and county real money. Getting a fine, probation (with associated fees), and forfeiture of property is punishment and a net gain for the county.

Mr. Shaver probably owns other handguns, and he can buy another one today. But the average defendant takes a hit by losing a weapon that cost anywhere from $300 to over $1,000. The law is supposed to treat a rich man and a poor man equally.

Mr. Shaver broke the law by intentionally carrying a firearm in a bar. He took his knocks. As others have said, he could have afforded to fight it; but his counsel probably told him not to count on being lucky twice in a row.

In my world, there would be no such thing as illegal weapons or places where weapons are prohibited. But we are obligated to obey the law that was created by the democratic process until such time as the law changes or is declared unconstitutional -- or take our chances.

I also wouldn't count on the weapon being scrapped. The county can sell it back into the private market, or it might just disappear from the property room.

- Jim

austinrealtor wrote:Again, not really my point. If BJS is ok with this deal, then good for him. What I'm asking is why - other than to "save face" - would a prosecutor even ask for such a thing?

The prosecutor is the only one who knows what the prosecutor was thinking.

However, don't lose sight of the fact that elected officials benefit from good press.