infoman wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:54 pm
Don’t be dumb & apply now as is. Get an Order of Non-Disclosure & then apply & you will be approved 100%- & I’m absolutely certain, not guessing. Also, if you were to get a non-resident out of state permit/license (like Florida for example), you could carry with that here. So, to sum up: 1. Get either an order of non-disclose or an expungement & apply for a Texas LTC, or 2. Get an out of state license- Florida, Arizona, Virginia, etc...
Again, I’m not guessing- this is accurate advise.
Accurate advise? Are you an attorney? An order of non-disclosure ONLY prevents the courts and police from releasing your records to public entities? It does not make it go away. DPS will still see it as a deferred adjudication.
Infoman is a reliable source for ‘Info’ from ‘The Man’
(See what I did there? )
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
infoman wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:54 pm
Don’t be dumb & apply now as is. Get an Order of Non-Disclosure & then apply & you will be approved 100%- & I’m absolutely certain, not guessing. Also, if you were to get a non-resident out of state permit/license (like Florida for example), you could carry with that here. So, to sum up: 1. Get either an order of non-disclose or an expungement & apply for a Texas LTC, or 2. Get an out of state license- Florida, Arizona, Virginia, etc...
Again, I’m not guessing- this is accurate advise.
Accurate advise? Are you an attorney? An order of non-disclosure ONLY prevents the courts and police from releasing your records to public entities? It does not make it go away. DPS will still see it as a deferred adjudication.
Infoman is a reliable source for ‘Info’ from ‘The Man’
(See what I did there? )
Interesting. The main issue for this situation is that a felony aggravated assault is a permanent disqualifier for a CHL, differed or not. A felony deferred is also not eligible for expungement. Only class a misdemeanor deferred is eligible for expungement. A non disclosure is only to keep law and courts from putting your deferred out to public entities. There is a whole list of agencies that still have access to the non-disclosure info. So the DPS will still show in their check that one has a felony defered for aggravated assault. It seems that would create a permanent no go for the Texas LTC.
I would still strongly suggest the OP call a lawyer who knows this issue specifically.
infoman wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:54 pm
Don’t be dumb & apply now as is. Get an Order of Non-Disclosure & then apply & you will be approved 100%- & I’m absolutely certain, not guessing. Also, if you were to get a non-resident out of state permit/license (like Florida for example), you could carry with that here. So, to sum up: 1. Get either an order of non-disclose or an expungement & apply for a Texas LTC, or 2. Get an out of state license- Florida, Arizona, Virginia, etc...
Again, I’m not guessing- this is accurate advise.
Accurate advise? Are you an attorney? An order of non-disclosure ONLY prevents the courts and police from releasing your records to public entities? It does not make it go away. DPS will still see it as a deferred adjudication.
Infoman is a reliable source for ‘Info’ from ‘The Man’
(See what I did there? )
Interesting. The main issue for this situation is that a felony aggravated assault is a permanent disqualifier for a CHL, differed or not. A felony deferred is also not eligible for expungement. Only class a misdemeanor deferred is eligible for expungement. A non disclosure is only to keep law and courts from putting your deferred out to public entities. There is a whole list of agencies that still have access to the non-disclosure info. So the DPS will still show in their check that one has a felony defered for aggravated assault. It seems that would create a permanent no go for the Texas LTC.
I would still strongly suggest the OP call a lawyer who knows this issue specifically.
From what I found that is not true....
"For a misdemeanor in Texas, you can seal your record immediately after completing your deferred adjudication. For a felony, you must wait 5 years to seal your record. The following charges are never eligible for a non-disclosure: Aggravated and Regular Sexual Assault."
A felony deferral is not a permanent bar, but a 10 year bar to LTC, unfortunately excluding Aggravated Assault....but....a "sealed" felony deferred adjudication, removes the record for LTC purposes. So this is what OP is trying to do. And Infoman is saying that a non-disclosure order is treated as a "sealed" record hence making OP eligible for LTC. Chas. also suggested several years ago that DPS said they treat a non-disclosure as "sealed" but it has not been confirmed. From my research a Texas order of non-disclosure "seems" to mean the same thing as sealing a record, but I have not heard of any official legal determination.
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!!!!"
infoman wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:54 pm
Don’t be dumb & apply now as is. Get an Order of Non-Disclosure & then apply & you will be approved 100%- & I’m absolutely certain, not guessing. Also, if you were to get a non-resident out of state permit/license (like Florida for example), you could carry with that here. So, to sum up: 1. Get either an order of non-disclose or an expungement & apply for a Texas LTC, or 2. Get an out of state license- Florida, Arizona, Virginia, etc...
Again, I’m not guessing- this is accurate advise.
Accurate advise? Are you an attorney? An order of non-disclosure ONLY prevents the courts and police from releasing your records to public entities? It does not make it go away. DPS will still see it as a deferred adjudication.
Infoman is a reliable source for ‘Info’ from ‘The Man’
(See what I did there? )
Interesting. The main issue for this situation is that a felony aggravated assault is a permanent disqualifier for a CHL, differed or not. A felony deferred is also not eligible for expungement. Only class a misdemeanor deferred is eligible for expungement. A non disclosure is only to keep law and courts from putting your deferred out to public entities. There is a whole list of agencies that still have access to the non-disclosure info. So the DPS will still show in their check that one has a felony defered for aggravated assault. It seems that would create a permanent no go for the Texas LTC.
I would still strongly suggest the OP call a lawyer who knows this issue specifically.
From what I found that is not true....
"For a misdemeanor in Texas, you can seal your record immediately after completing your deferred adjudication. For a felony, you must wait 5 years to seal your record. The following charges are never eligible for a non-disclosure: Aggravated and Regular Sexual Assault."
A felony deferral is not a permanent bar, but a 10 year bar to LTC, unfortunately excluding Aggravated Assault....but....a "sealed" felony deferred adjudication, removes the record for LTC purposes. So this is what OP is trying to do. And Infoman is saying that a non-disclosure order is treated as a "sealed" record hence making OP eligible for LTC. Chas. also suggested several years ago that DPS said they treat a non-disclosure as "sealed" but it has not been confirmed. From my research a Texas order of non-disclosure "seems" to mean the same thing as sealing a record, but I have not heard of any official legal determination.
An order sealing deferred adjudication will not seal it from the LTC licensing board or other government agencies.
You sound like you are mixing up two different processes. Expungement and non disclosure are not the same. Read my post again and you will see what I was talking about. A non disclosure does not seal anything from the LTC licensing board. It simply forbids them giving out your information to public entities. An expungement deletes the record. Felony deferred adjudication is not elligible for expungement. If you have a felony deffered adjudication, your only option is a non disclosure.
Last edited by 03Lightningrocks on Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Effect: Sealing is different from an expunction. A Texas expunction order requires all your criminal records information to be shredded and physically destroyed by all police and government agencies, leaving no documented evidence of your criminal past. You can deny under oath that an arrest occurred, and you can even deny the expunction itself. This is not true for non-disclosure orders. An order of non-disclosure does not physically destroy any of your criminal records. But it does restrict when and to whom your criminal information can be released to and viewed. An Order for Non-Disclosure prohibits the criminal justice agencies from turning over your criminal history to the general public, private screening and background search companies, credit reporting agencies, employers, landlords, and private investigators, etc. But the information would be seen by law enforcement, state licensing and regulatory agencies, schools, hospitals and state, county and municipal hiring authorities. You cannot deny the offense under oath.
Read more: ///criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/sealing-adult-criminal-records-in-texas-nondisclosure-orders.htm#ixzz5zinzfu1K
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook
Last edited by 03Lightningrocks on Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I said misdemeanor level backwards above. Only class c can be expunged. A and B along with felonies are only eligible for non-disclosure.
Expunction is an option for deferred adjudication only in Class C misdemeanor cases. If you were sentenced to deferred adjudication probation for a Class A or B misdemeanor or any level of felony, you are not eligible for an expunction. However, you may still qualify for an Order of Non-Disclosure, which seals your arrest record from access by the general public.
Quite frankly, the intricacies involved in what the OP has asked are absolutely above anything one can offer on this forum. I would bet that an attorney would even refuse to give advise on this thread.
The Annoyed Man said it best... and no matter what else is "advised" it is the only intelligent move to make.
The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:06 am
GET. A. LAWYER. ......in case you ignored anything written above....... then start from the top with him/her. This is just an Internet forum.....a very good one.....but still.....
I have been doing my best google foo.I found this, which if I read it right, addresses my concern above about the non disclosure(defined as sealed) being still visible to the LTC licensing agency. It looks like they accept a non disclosure(sealed) as good to go. Again, IANAL, I am only looking up info as it is brought up. I found this on our forum from 2010.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.171 wrote:SECTION 6.06. Section 411.171(4), Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
(4)"Convicted" means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:
(A)expunged; [or]
(B)pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or
(C)otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.
The OP there had gotten a non disclosure(sealed) and qualified. They can see the deferred so don't try to hide it but they approved him anyway. If this is the case, you could get a lawyer to do a non disclosure and once that is approved, it looks like they would issue the LTC.
Charles had posted on this thread that this is how it works.
03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:44 pm
Quite frankly, the intricacies involved in what the OP has asked are absolutely above anything one can offer on this forum. I would bet that an attorney would even refuse to give advise on this thread.
The Annoyed Man said it best... and no matter what else is "advised" it is the only intelligent move to make.
The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:06 am
GET. A. LAWYER. ......in case you ignored anything written above....... then start from the top with him/her. This is just an Internet forum.....a very good one.....but still.....
Nobody can make up your mind for you.
I mostly understand the nuances of sealed, expunged, and non-disclosure. However, quoting directly from GC 411 on eligibility:
(4) “Convicted” means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:
(A) expunged; (B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or
(C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.
So the TXMEDIC1 would be eligible for a LTC if his record was "sealed". Regardless of whether the DPS could see the previous deferral or not, he would be eligible, because the was not convicted by the definition in GC 411. Now I have heard that Texas does not always follow it's own rules when it comes to eligibility, which is why it will likely take a lawyer to work this out. But if his record is, in fact, "sealed" it would be as if he never was convicted, or was pardoned, or his conviction was set aside on appeal.
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!!!!"
03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:44 pm
Quite frankly, the intricacies involved in what the OP has asked are absolutely above anything one can offer on this forum. I would bet that an attorney would even refuse to give advise on this thread.
The Annoyed Man said it best... and no matter what else is "advised" it is the only intelligent move to make.
The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:06 am
GET. A. LAWYER. ......in case you ignored anything written above....... then start from the top with him/her. This is just an Internet forum.....a very good one.....but still.....
Nobody can make up your mind for you.
I mostly understand the nuances of sealed, expunged, and non-disclosure. However, quoting directly from GC 411 on eligibility:
(4) “Convicted” means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:
(A) expunged; (B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or
(C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.
So the TXMEDIC1 would be eligible for a LTC if his record was "sealed". Regardless of whether the DPS could see the previous deferral or not, he would be eligible, because the was not convicted by the definition in GC 411. Now I have heard that Texas does not always follow it's own rules when it comes to eligibility, which is why it will likely take a lawyer to work this out. But if his record is, in fact, "sealed" it would be as if he never was convicted, or was pardoned, or his conviction was set aside on appeal.
Yeah, I just found that while googling. I agree with you. It sure sounds like getting a non-disclosure will allow him to qualify.
We don't need no stinking lawyer. we have GOOGLE. J/K...
infoman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:34 pm
I know for a fact that getting a non-disclosure makes you eligible, & I have an excellent source. 100% fact.
LOL... that is great but if you would have posted this
(4) “Convicted” means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:
(A) expunged;
(B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or
(C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.
instead of just saying "I Know" or "I have an excellent source", it would have carried a bit more impact and put an earlier end to the conversation.
03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:46 pm
instead of just saying "I Know" or "I have an excellent source", it would have carried a bit more impact and put an earlier end to the conversation.
Lately, it seems that discussions have turned more confrontational. I suppose that it's because we are getting defensive from our constant attack from the leftist progressives. This isn't Facebook, and we have a history of treating members with respect.
Sometimes we evaluate the quality of a statement by the quality of the source. Infoman is a good source, he was being intentionally evasive, but he was obviously giving advice from close personal experience or observation. Like most of us he may not have had the ability or time to find the exact letters of the law. There was advice to go see a lawyer. I don't know what your experience is with them, but I have found them to be expensive. It seemed to me it was very good advice to go ahead and try. We don't need to turn every discussion into an argument.
Actually he did get a lawyers opinion on this forum from Mr. Cotton.
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
03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:46 pm
instead of just saying "I Know" or "I have an excellent source", it would have carried a bit more impact and put an earlier end to the conversation.
Lately, it seems that discussions have turned more confrontational. I suppose that it's because we are getting defensive from our constant attack from the leftist progressives. This isn't Facebook, and we have a history of treating members with respect.
Sometimes we evaluate the quality of a statement by the quality of the source. Infoman is a good source, he was being intentionally evasive, but he was obviously giving advice from close personal experience or observation. Like most of us he may not have had the ability or time to find the exact letters of the law. There was advice to go see a lawyer. I don't know what your experience is with them, but I have found them to be expensive. It seemed to me it was very good advice to go ahead and try. We don't need to turn every discussion into an argument.
Actually he did get a lawyers opinion on this forum from Mr. Cotton.
I will resist the urge to be confrontational about your confrontational reply and just say that nothing I posted was meant to be confrontational. I was trying to find statutes that applied to getting a LTC in the OP original position. My comment that you quoted was posted because after finding the proper statutes, it seemed as if infoman was on the right track. It was a response to his earlier post that in essence said "don't be dumb and just take my word for it". This being the internet, most reading these posts don't know much about the history or every past post everyone commenting has made. It is however a fact that once we came up with the correct statutes, the CONVERSATION was pretty much over.
)
