CHL Qual??

[DallasTx]

Hi, I have a question about qualifying to get CHL. When I was 17 (20yrs ago) I was joy riding in a stolen car with a friend. Police stopped us, friend ran I stayed put, was arrested for UUMV(unauthorized use of motor vehicel). I recieved 5 yrs Deferred Judification Probation. Needles to say that was a big scared for me, been straight since. It has beed 20 yrs,,,Do I qualify??

 

[txinvestigator]

Hi, I have a question about qualifying to get CHL. When I was 17 (20yrs ago) I was joy riding in a stolen car with a friend. Police stopped us, friend ran I stayed put, was arrested for UUMV(unauthorized use of motor vehicel). I recieved 5 yrs Deferred Judification Probation. Needles to say that was a big scared for me, been straight since. It has beed 20 yrs,,,Do I qualify??

UUMV is a felony. Since you received deferred I believe you are eligible.

Texas Government Code



Sec. 411.1711. CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM CONVICTIONS. A person is not convicted, as that term is defined by Section 411.171, if an order of deferred adjudication was entered against the person on a date not less than 10 years preceding the date of the person's application for a license under this subchapter unless the order of deferred adjudication was entered against the person for an offense under Title 5, Penal Code, or Chapter 29, Penal Code.

Title 5 is offenses against the person, and chapter 29 is robbery. UUMV is not in either one of those.

 

[TxEMTP69]

Just make sure you disclose it on the app

 

[DallasTx]

Is it still a felony today? I read/heard somewhere it is now a misdemeanor ? Thanks for the reply

 

[txinvestigator]

Is it still a felony today? I read/heard somewhere it is now a misdemeanor ? Thanks for the reply

It is a state jail felony. When you were caught, it was a 3rd degree. That said, TX looks at what the penalty was when the offense occured, not the penalty today.

Let us know how it works out.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Ms. O'Shay (the legal Queen at DPS) says that the deferred adjudication exception for applicable felonies applies only if you were charged as a juvenile.

If you've spoken with her, you know what a wealth of information she is.... NOT! I asked for an explanation, as the statute doesn't specify this. She told us that Texas does not offer deferred adjudication for felonies when the perpetrator is charged as an adult. My attorney friends tell me she's mistaken.

Regarding the classification of the charge, she says the state will apply the current or original classification, whichever is lower when considering eligibility.

Comments, TXI?

 

[txinvestigator]

Ms. O'Shay (the legal Queen at DPS) says that the deferred adjudication exception for applicable felonies applies only if you were charged as a juvenile.

If you've spoken with her, you know what a wealth of information she is.... NOT! I asked for an explanation, as the statute doesn't specify this. She told us that Texas does not offer deferred adjudication for felonies when the perpetrator is charged as an adult. My attorney friends tell me she's mistaken.

Regarding the classification of the charge, she says the state will apply the current or original classification, whichever is lower when considering eligibility.

Comments, TXI?

When did you speak to the liberal attorney about this? The deferred exception was added in 2005.

What you state that she told you makes no sense. Anyone adjudicated as a juvenile as engaged in felony delinquent conduct must wait ten years from the date of adjudication. Deferred is irrelevant in regards to juveniles, felony or not.

In fact, unless certified as an adult, juveniles are not convicted of crimes. They are adjudicated as having engaged in either delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. Juvenlies are person 10 to 16 years of age.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

When did you speak to the liberal attorney about this? The deferred exception was added in 2005. "

I spoke with her at the last renewal, this past September.

What you state that she told you makes no sense. Anyone adjudicated as a juvenile as engaged in felony delinquent conduct must wait ten years from the date of adjudication.

I understand this. O'Shaw said it applied only to juveniles charged with felonies and NOT certified as an adult.

Deferred is irrelevant in regards to juveniles, felony or not.

In fact, unless certified as an adult, juveniles are not convicted of crimes. They are adjudicated as having engaged in either delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. Juvenlies are person 10 to 16 years of age.

That's how I understood it, but O'Shaw thinks differently. This is why I invited your comments.

 

[txinvestigator]

When did you speak to the liberal attorney about this? The deferred exception was added in 2005. "

I spoke with her at the last renewal, this past September.



I understand this. O'Shaw said it applied only to juveniles charged with felonies and NOT certified as an adult.



That's how I understood it, but O'Shaw thinks differently. This is why I invited your comments.

If you are representing her accurately, then she is wrong. I am not attorney, but i can read and conprehend.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

If you are representing her accurately, then she is wrong. I am not attorney, but i can read and conprehend.

She was clear and adamant, hence my question and confusion. She said a great many things with which I disagreed. Most of my disagreement came from that which she did NOT say. I found it odd that she refused any questions on MPA and unlicensed carry, telling us that we're here to talk about licensed carry. At the next break, I asked why she refused to address the instructors' questions on unlicensed carry and reminded her that 3 test questions address unlicensed carry. She retorted smugly, "I know that. We're not going to address unlicensed carry in this class," and abruptly walked off.

I know how to piss people off...

 

[txinvestigator]

She was clear and adamant, hence my question and confusion. She said a great many things with which I disagreed. Most of my disagreement came from that which she did NOT say. I found it odd that she refused any questions on MPA and unlicensed carry, telling us that we're here to talk about licensed carry. At the next break, I asked why she refused to address the instructors' questions on unlicensed carry and reminded her that 3 test questions address unlicensed carry. She retorted smugly, "I know that. We're not going to address unlicensed carry in this class," and abruptly walked off.

I know how to piss people off...

MPA?

She probably did not answer because she does not know. I don't understand why an attorney who opposes the CHL laws and dislikes guns would take the job she has.


OK, that is disingenuous. I do understand.

 

[Seabear1500]

Like when I was there, Use of Deadly Force was a no discussion topic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH???????????????????? WHat are we there for?