Are CHL's always suspended for violations?

[Locke]

Saw this today http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nati ... cense.html.

Till I saw this I thought CHL's were always suspended/revoked for infractions of the statute. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing or has anyone ever heard of a sucessful appeal?

Seems like your guilty till proven innocent on this one unfortunately.

Here's The Statute
-----------------------------------------------------------
§ 411.187. SUSPENSION OF LICENSE[0]. (a) A license[0] may be
suspended under this section if the license[0] holder:

(1) is charged with the commission of a Class A or
Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code,
or of a felony under an information or indictment;
(c) A license[0] may be suspended under this section:
(4) until dismissal of the charges if the person's
license[0] is subject to suspension for the reason listed in
Subsection (a)(1)

[DKSuddeth]

your license can be 'suspended' while under indictment. It's alot easier to unsuspend a license, otherwise if there is a revocation and then later you're acquitted, you'd have to go through the process all over again.

Maybe this will prompt the lawmakers to modify this policy now?

[Paladin]

Some other articles:

DeLay Loses Concealed Gun Permit After Indictments; Appeals To Get It Back:

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/895/del ... ndictments

Unless He's Convicted, Tom DeLay Deserves To Get His Gun Back:

http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/904/ ... -the-trial

[nitrogen]

Some other articles:
Unless He's Convicted, Tom DeLay Deserves To Get His Gun Back:

http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/904/ ... -the-trial
Wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The law says your CHL gets suspended if you get indited.

Delay can either work to get the charges dropped, or tough it out.

Or he can lobby the texas legislature to change the law, when it meets in 2007.

The law sucks, but that's the law. He doesn't deserve any special privileges.

[KBCraig]

Some other articles:
Unless He's Convicted, Tom DeLay Deserves To Get His Gun Back:

http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/904/ ... -the-trial
Wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The law says your CHL gets suspended if you get indited.

The law, which is quoted in the first post of this thread, says a CHL may be suspended upon idictment. Not "shall", not "will", but "may".

What were you saying about "wrong", again?

Kevin

[yerasimos]

They did not seize his handguns did they? After all, this is Texas, not the PRK or NYS, and he has only been indicted, with a final disposition months away. Is the author of the Fort Bend Now article slightly offsides here, as I think?

[nitrogen]

I was referring to the fact in the article that the article said it was crazy for Texas to suspend his CHL. While, it might be crazy, it IS the law.

Personally I do think it's wrong, and look forward to the law being changed.

[DKSuddeth]

They did not seize his handguns did they? After all, this is Texas, not the PRK or NYS, and he has only been indicted, with a final disposition months away. Is the author of the Fort Bend Now article slightly offsides here, as I think?

As far as I understand the law, it only suspends the carry license, it does not confiscate arms.

[KBCraig]

I was referring to the fact in the article that the article said it was crazy for Texas to suspend his CHL. While, it might be crazy, it IS the law.

While the law allows suspension, it does not require it.

Personally I do think it's wrong, and look forward to the law being changed.

100% agreement.

Kevin

[Paladin]

The Houston Chronicle makes their opinion pretty clear in this editorial. Of course it seems to avoid the issue that the license 'may' be suspended, but is not required to be suspended.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 60616.html

[nitrogen]

The Houston Chronicle makes their opinion pretty clear in this editorial. Of course it seems to avoid the issue that the license 'may' be suspended, but is not required to be suspended.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 60616.html

I agree 99% with that article. I'd love to see something added that allows a judge to suspend a CHL if he believes someone indited might use a weapon against someone else (like in domestic violence cases) but a DA must show reasonable cause before this happens.

I think we can all agree with that?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Both revocation and suspension of a CHL are may standards, not shall. Also, it appears that being charged with a Class A or B Misdemeanor or a felony is not a basis for revocation, only suspension. See Tex. Govt. Code §411.186(a)(3) below.

I have to admit I'm not up on this issue, but I fully suspect that DPS seeks suspenstion for every felony and Class A or B Misdemeanor.

Chas.

Tex. Govt. Code §411.186(a)(3)

§ 411.186. REVOCATION. (a) A license may be revoked
under this section if the license holder:
(1) was not entitled to the license at the time it was
issued;

(2) gave false information on the application;

(3) subsequently becomes ineligible for a license
under Section 411.172, unless the sole basis for the ineligibility
is that the license holder is charged with the commission of a Class
A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal
Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;

[ElGato]

Saw this today http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nati ... cense.html.

Till I saw this I thought CHL's were always suspended/revoked for infractions of the statute. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing or has anyone ever heard of a sucessful appeal?

Seems like your guilty till proven innocent on this one unfortunately.

Here's The Statute
-----------------------------------------------------------
§ 411.187. SUSPENSION OF LICENSE[0]. (a) A license[0] may be
suspended under this section if the license[0] holder:

(1) is charged with the commission of a Class A or
Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code,
or of a felony under an information or indictment;
(c) A license[0] may be suspended under this section:
(4) until dismissal of the charges if the person's
license[0] is subject to suspension for the reason listed in
Subsection (a)(1)

I think we have been taught to teach that the license WOULD be suspended, as many time's as I have read that, the word MAY never jumped out at me, there might be something here with a good Lawyer and the right Judge?