Deferred domestic

[Fox34]

Can I still get my CHL in Texas if I have had a deferred domestic it was about 7,8 yrs ago?

[C-dub]

Welcome to the forum!

There are a few possibilities. In Texas, deferred adjudication is usually the same as a guilty plea and would be a permanent deferral for a CHL. Also, it might prohibit you from owning firearms at all according federal laws.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdem ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since the domestic, have you purchased a firearms from an FFL after listing this on the 4473 form?

[Fox34]

Yes I have bought many from gun stores filled out the paper work and walked out with it

[Jumping Frog]

Welcome to the forum!

There are a few possibilities. In Texas, deferred adjudication is usually the same as a guilty plea and would be a permanent deferral for a CHL. Also, it might prohibit you from owning firearms at all according federal laws.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdem ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since the domestic, have you purchased a firearms from an FFL after listing this on the 4473 form?

Deferred adjudication does NOT count as a conviction for anything (state or federal) EXCEPT for CHL eligibility. Assuming misdemeanor, a deferred adjudication is NOT a conviction for federal misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If the adjudication was finally settled more than 5 years ago, it does not disqualify you for a CHL.

[C-dub]

I am not as good a legal eagle as some on the forum and Jumping From is probably correct. I was merely going off of other previous threads on this issue and the questions on that BATF website.

Q: Is a person who received “probation before judgment” or some other type of deferred adjudication subject to the disability?
What is a conviction is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. If the State law where the proceedings were held does not consider probation before judgment or deferred adjudication to be a conviction, the person would not be subject to the disability.
[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33), 27 CFR 478.11]

However, if it only counts for CHL eligibility, then that's good news for the OP.

[lfinsr]

I keep seeing this question over and over. I understand the law and it is what it is. Among us there is no one that hasn't done something stupid at some point in their life. Whether or not you were caught is the question....

There really needs to be a way to fix this. A bad decision you made when young and dumb shouldn't haunt you the remainder of your life. At some point you've paid your dues. Am I the only one that believes this? I believe this is something the would benefit a great number of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Fox34]

I was young and dumb. Now I'm old and I don't have time for stupid stuff. I just wanna be able to protect myself if need .

[The Annoyed Man]

I keep seeing this question over and over. I understand the law and it is what it is. Among us there is no one that hasn't done something stupid at some point in their life. Whether or not you were caught is the question....

There really needs to be a way to fix this. A bad decision you made when young and dumb shouldn't haunt you the remainder of your life. At some point you've paid your dues. Am I the only one that believes this? I believe this is something the would benefit a great number of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I was young and dumb. Now I'm old and I don't have time for stupid stuff. I just wanna be able to protect myself if need .

Have either of you considered the possibility of petitioning a court to expunge the record (or whatever it is that courts do to make felony convictions go away)? I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this sort of thing is possible with a deferred adjudication in a domestic violence dispute, but I know that it can be done for other sorts of felony convictions. Just a thought......

[Fox34]

was not a felony

[C-dub]

I keep seeing this question over and over. I understand the law and it is what it is. Among us there is no one that hasn't done something stupid at some point in their life. Whether or not you were caught is the question....

There really needs to be a way to fix this. A bad decision you made when young and dumb shouldn't haunt you the remainder of your life. At some point you've paid your dues. Am I the only one that believes this? I believe this is something the would benefit a great number of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Saying that we were all young and dumb and did stupid things is one thing and sounds cute, but we all have not done things to get us DQed from having a CHL. I wasn't caught because I didn't do anything disqualifying to get caught doing. Yeah, I did stupid things, but nothing illegal like that.

[lfinsr]

I keep seeing this question over and over. I understand the law and it is what it is. Among us there is no one that hasn't done something stupid at some point in their life. Whether or not you were caught is the question....

There really needs to be a way to fix this. A bad decision you made when young and dumb shouldn't haunt you the remainder of your life. At some point you've paid your dues. Am I the only one that believes this? I believe this is something the would benefit a great number of people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Saying that we were all young and dumb and did stupid things is one thing and sounds cute, but we all have not done things to get us DQed from having a CHL. I wasn't caught because I didn't do anything disqualifying to get caught doing. Yeah, I did stupid things, but nothing illegal like that.

Just to set the record straight, I haven't either, at least knowingly. Do a Google search for "3 Felonies a Day".

Let me be clear, domestic violence is unacceptable, but I believe many people were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, took bad advice from counsel, and are stuck with little or no recourse. Many PD's responding to a disturbance call will take someone to jail, period. It may, or not, have been nothing more than an argument. I have a close friend that is a victim of this exact scenario, a marriage that he simply couldn't get out of quick enough.

My point is there should be a mechanism to get your rights back after a predetermined amount of time. As it is you're at the mercy of petitioning a court for expungement which may or may not happen. With few exceptions, most everyone deserves a second chance. And again, with few exceptions, nothing should be a permanent disqualifier.

I'm not advocating wiping the slate clean for chronic offenders, just a fair shake at redeeming one's self.

[The Annoyed Man]

My point is there should be a mechanism to get your rights back after a predetermined amount of time. As it is you're at the mercy of petitioning a court for expungement which may or may not happen. With few exceptions, most everyone deserves a second chance. And again, with few exceptions, nothing should be a permanent disqualifier.

I'm not advocating wiping the slate clean for chronic offenders, just a fair shake at redeeming one's self.

Personally, I am conflicted about permanent loss of rights - even for people who have committed fairly serious crimes. Part of me says, as long as they have served their time........all of it.....then how can we justify continuing to punish after the sentence has been served? On the other hand, recidivism is a serious problem, and a very large percentage of convicted criminals are career criminals. Here's some information from the National Institute of Justice on recidivism:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/r ... statistics

National Statistics on Recidivism

Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:

• Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
• Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

Perhaps.......and I'm just spitballin' here.....maybe rights aren't automatically restored after time served because it makes no statistical sense to do that. If it is true that recidivism is so high that only 1/3 of released convicts will remain free for 3 years after release, and only 1/4 of released convicts will remain free after 5 years, then speaking strictly in terms of statistics, maybe it makes more sense to require the minority who are NOT recidivist to petition for restoration of rights, than it does to automatically restore rights upon release, only to have to take them away again shortly afterward.

So perhaps automatic loss of rights is in recognition of the fact that most criminals are career criminals, that it's not enough to serve your time, but you should also have to prove that you're not only not a criminal anymore, but that you are in fact a stellar citizen.

Balanced against that, when it comes to gun rights in particular, does a career criminal have any less of a right to self-defense than any Sunday school teacher? Assuming that self-defense remains a right, then why are they not allowed the means of doing so with the best tool for the job? And if they aren't allowed that means, then why does BATFE allow a convicted felon to possess a replica of a cap & ball black powder .44 revolver (see page 2) like this one?


That revolver will shoot you just as dead as this one, which a felon cannot own:


So I have a lot of questions like that. But purely from a management perspective, the state probably finds petitioning for rights to be less problematic that automatic restoration.....would be my guess.

[Jumping Frog]

There are states that have a well defined mechanism in their statutes for having a record sealed and firearm rights restored. It typically is available only to first time offenders with one felony, or possibly one or two misdemeanors. There will be a period of time after the conviction is "final", meaning all sentences or probation is served, such as 3 years after the sentence is complete. The process requires petitioning a judge with statements and supporting witnesses arguing why the person is now living a clean life and deserves record sealing or rights restoration. The prosecutor has the right to object or support the petition.

The sealed record is still available to law enforcement and prosecutors, and considered by a jury, if they are investigating or prosecuting subsequent crimes.

Personally, I am OK with someone being given one lifetime chance at clearing their record. I've seen people do stupid things when they were young. Heck, I remember doing stupid things myself when I was young and am fortunate I was never arrested. Some people are lucky like I was, other people learn their lessons the hard way.

[C-dub]

My point is there should be a mechanism to get your rights back after a predetermined amount of time. As it is you're at the mercy of petitioning a court for expungement which may or may not happen. With few exceptions, most everyone deserves a second chance. And again, with few exceptions, nothing should be a permanent disqualifier.

I'm not advocating wiping the slate clean for chronic offenders, just a fair shake at redeeming one's self.

The libertarian side of me agrees with this and to expand on TAM's point, I am all for the restoration of one's rights after completion of a sentence and possibly some additional time (not to be an unreasonable period) for the person to prove they have not returned to their previous ways.

To be sure, there are circumstances where people find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, but those are the exception and I believe most of those cases will be worked out justly by the system. I was almost a victim of a situation like that once or twice in the Navy and fought hard to rectify them successfully. I do sympathize with folks things like that happen to, but there are far too many people that fall back into former bad habits. It's a tough world and I don't have all the answers and am just as conflicted about this as TAM and many others I'm sure.

[ScottDLS]

The real issue here is the loss of firearms rights for convicted misdemeanants... Only DV counts in this case where as all other misdemeanors don't. Thanks Pres. Clinton & Senator Lautenberg. If a DV is so minor that it is only a misdemeanor, then it shouldn't count. There are plenty of felonies to charge people with if they are doing more than shouting.