felony charge but convicted as a misdemeanor

[bevans]

one more question, went to county clerk and got certified records but a couple of sheriff deputys were standing there and when they asked why i wanted my paperwork i told them it was for a chl packet. one of them turned the screen around and read the screen and he informed me that even though i was convicted of a misd. 17 years ago it was first charged as a felony and i will not be eligable. he stated that because i was convicted of three misd. the last one which was in 1989 will disqualify me and not to waste my time going to class at top gun on oct7. should i still go or just blow off class i realize that 17 years ago i was stupid but i cant help feeling that i am wasting my time i know i have asked this question before but ya'll are a great sounding board

[Charles L. Cotton]

He was wrong on all points. It is the conviction that matters, not the fact that the initial charge was a felony. 3 misdemeanors the latest of which was in 1989 are not disqualifying. Two alcohol related misdemeanor convictions within 10 years prior to your CHL application could be a problem, but that's not your situation.

Here are the relevant sections of the Government Code:


§ 411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a
license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:age;


(3) has not been convicted of a felony;


(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code;


(c) An individual who has been convicted two times within the 10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater that involves the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for purposes of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under this subchapter. . . .

[Chris]

asking someone with a badge doesn't mean you're getting an expert opinion. always get a second.

[DaveT]

You are entitled to a copy of your records. The deputies had no business asking why you wanted them, and you had no obligation to explain anything to them. If you did feel a need to respond, it should have been "for my personal records" or something to that effect.

[txinvestigator]

You are entitled to a copy of your records. The deputies had no business asking why you wanted them, and you had no obligation to explain anything to them. If you did feel a need to respond, it should have been "for my personal records" or something to that effect.

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

[Glockamolie]

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

No offense, but he didn't exactly solicit their legal advice, either. Looks like their advice was worth what he paid for it. I agree they can ask all they want, and it can even be SOP, but their subsequent legal advice was unnecessary, and apparently wrong.

[txinvestigator]

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

No offense, but he didn't exactly solicit their legal advice, either. Looks like their advice was worth what he paid for it. I agree they can ask all they want, and it can even be SOP, but their subsequent legal advice was unnecessary, and apparently wrong.

I agree with you there.

My point is that we have no idea of the context of the conversation. I have been in county clerks offices many times as a PI. Often people come in and ask for something without really being able to describe what they want, or they don't know the terminology of that facility. Asking what the information is for can help discern what the person actually needs.

The deputies could have been trying to be helpful and just had bad information, or they could be anti-CHL, or they could just be jerks. We don't really know.

[wrt45]

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

They can ask, but outside the scope of their LE authority, no one should feel obligated to answer a deputy or any other official when they ask a nosey question. The difficulty is distinguishing between the LE authority and simple conversation, polite or nosey. When a uniformed officer asks "Why do you need this?" most of us are programmed to respond as though they are asking in an official capacity, even if they aren't.

A polite "Just personal records......" should be more than enough.

Earlier this year my wife and I went to get her birth certificate for a passport. The clerk required my wife to write out on their office form why she needed a copy of the certificate. Absolutely none of the county clerk's office business, but rather than argue, a "Personal Records" answer got the job done.

[txinvestigator]

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

They can ask, but outside the scope of their LE authority, no one should feel obligated to answer a deputy or any other official when they ask a nosey question. The difficulty is distinguishing between the LE authority and simple conversation, polite or nosey. When a uniformed officer asks "Why do you need this?" most of us are programmed to respond as though they are asking in an official capacity, even if they aren't.

A polite "Just personal records......" should be more than enough.

Earlier this year my wife and I went to get her birth certificate for a passport. The clerk required my wife to write out on their office form why she needed a copy of the certificate. Absolutely none of the county clerk's office business, but rather than argue, a "Personal Records"

answer got the job done.

And I agree with you too.

[DaveT]

You are entitled to a copy of your records. The deputies had no business asking why you wanted them, and you had no obligation to explain anything to them. If you did feel a need to respond, it should have been "for my personal records" or something to that effect.

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

Not at all. When I sad the deputies had no business, I meant exactly that. The poster was in the County Clerks office and to the best of my knowledge, County Clerks do not employ deputies and handle entirely different matters that those handled by the Sheriff's Department and the deputies.

I am very pro-LE, having worked in that profession for many years..... up to and including the position of Chief of Police for two different communities. My experience, and my opinion is that the deputies were just standing around, overheard the conversation and decided to involve themselves with what turned out to be rather uninformed commentary.

My advice to the poster was straightforward. He was under no obligation to answer any comments by the deputies, but if he thought he needed to do so, 'personal records' would have been sufficient.

txinvestigator, You are free to take my comments any way you wish, but to read something into what I said that is simply not there is an error on your part.

[txinvestigator]

You are entitled to a copy of your records. The deputies had no business asking why you wanted them, and you had no obligation to explain anything to them. If you did feel a need to respond, it should have been "for my personal records" or something to that effect.

The deputies can ask anything they like. You make it sound as though they were in violation of some rule, law or procedure.

Not at all. When I sad the deputies had no business, I meant exactly that. The poster was in the County Clerks office and to the best of my knowledge, County Clerks do not employ deputies and handle entirely different matters that those handled by the Sheriff's Department and the deputies.

I am very pro-LE, having worked in that profession for many years..... up to and including the position of Chief of Police for two different communities. My experience, and my opinion is that the deputies were just standing around, overheard the conversation and decided to involve themselves with what turned out to be rather uninformed commentary.

My advice to the poster was straightforward. He was under no obligation to answer any comments by the deputies, but if he thought he needed to do so, 'personal records' would have been sufficient.

txinvestigator, You are free to take my comments any way you wish, but to read something into what I said that is simply not there is an error on your part.

I agree with you that the man was under no obligation to answer. But to say the deputied "had no business asking" is simply not correct. Perhaps, depending upon the circumstances, it was none of their business.

[DaveT]

depending upon the circumstances, it was none of their business.

In your zeal to disagree, you made my point.

If it was none of their business, they had no business asking.

Whatever........

[switch]

Under what circumstances would it be the deputies business? Sounds like he was trying to be helpful, unfortunately, he did not know what he was talking about.

[quote="txinvestigator
I agree with you that the man was under no obligation to answer. But to say the deputied "had no business asking" is simply not correct. Perhaps, depending upon the circumstances, it was none of their business.[/quote]

[TxBlonde]

In 1999 I was charged with a felony, and it was convicted on a Mis (Stupid Discussion made as a Teenager).......I still got my CHL.....That cop does not know what he is talking about...


Plus I do not think Cops are allowed to give legal advice...that is called practicing law with out a license.....And from what I have learned in my legal ethics class that would would be legal advice...


I am just curious when did this cop get a law degree....