CHL's and felony charges?

[speedsix]

...that's about 7 years, isn't it...that'd be fair to someone trying to start again...you said it better than I did...a lot of young people would benefit if it could be brought into being...some would take it for granted and mess up again, but a lot of them wouldn't...we've got a lot of guys here who screwed up long ago...and have lived a lotta good life since then...maybe they could have a qualifier where they had to go X number of years without messing up then they'd drop the old stuff...

[CC Italian]

I think I am with gigag04 on this.

Disagree.

Burg of a hab, while not violent, definitely affects people. Youve been there when you take that report and the wife is too scared to even stay at the ransacked house.

It's defiantly not a victim-less crime in the mental sense! It's one thing if a non violent felon is allowed to own a gun in his home after a certain amount of time. All people should be able to protect themselves in their "castle" (except violent criminals, they have lost their right to own a firearm) but to allow a convicted felon to get a CHL is a little much for me reformed or not.

Carrying around a firearm on your person is a huge responsibility! Let me put it this way; I know it isn't exactly the same thing but would you want a non violent reformed felon to be allowed to become a law enforcement officer and carry a weapon? Heck, you can lose your state teaching license for getting a first offense DWI for ten years!

My point is I think a CHL should be held to the same standard as a LEO when it comes to criminal record. I might get blasted for this by others but it is my opinion but then again you know what they say about opinions. Owning a firearm in your home to me is very different then being allowed to carry a loaded weapon almost everywhere you want, you must have a good track record!

[johnson0317]

I understand and agree with speedsix (as usual), and with CC Italian. One thought I might interject, however, is that the "non-violent" burgular of a habitation might simply be that one that never got confronted while doing his thing. If braced, he may have gone a whole different direction. Just a thought! Running along those same lines...I used to drive while drunk when I was about 30 years younger. Go to a party, drive home. Never got into an accident, and never got caught. Using my logic above, I could have been considered a potential perpetrator of vehicular homicide. I never did, and I would not think it was fair to be called that, and it has been about 26 years since I have gotten behind the wheel with even a whiff of alcohol on my breath.

Sometimes if I did not have convoluted logic, I would have no logic at all!

Yeah, sometimes you have to cut someone a break, especially if they have shown themselves to be different than before.

RJ

[srothstein]

I have been doing some research that is related to this type of subject for a school paper. It is now well accepted medically that the part of the brain that controls judgment does not fully develop until the early twenties. It is also well known that most people stop committing crimes as they pass through their twenties and into their thirties.

From this, I have developed a theory I am working on that some juvenile delinquency is not caused by a desire to commit crime, especially not to injure people. There is a certain element of thrill seeking in committing what the juvenile sees as a victimless crime. This is not to say the crime itself is victimless, but it may be seen that way by the juvenile, like shoplifting.

If enough real research is done and could prove me right (I have not yet figured out what is needed in this respect), it could indicate a need to reform some of our juvenile justice laws. For example, many more crimes should be forgiven if there is still a clean record after enough years and some age have passed.

Of course, I also do not support permanent bans on anything for many convictions, even for adults and real victims. If the person has gone straight and is safe to be in society, there is no need for further punishment.

[speedsix]

...in layman's terms, they don't know what they don't know...and can't follow their actions through to the end result...in SOME cases...because their experience is so limited...in others, they're not naive at all...and use their age as a get out of jail free card...people and their thought patterns are not an exact science...we'd have to rely on judges to apply the law wisely...and that's a scary thought in itself...


...I'd seriously like to read your paper when you're finished...I've seen several situations where someone's foolish youth dragged them down as an adult...more than I think it should...but a fair solution seems way out there somewhere...

[pcgizzmo]

To the OP:

I assume it's possible that whatever convictions your father had back in 1978 are not able to be found in the NCIS or the county where the crime was committed. If he can purchase weapons then something isn't showing as it should be. Computers were not common back then and everything was done on paperwork. It's possible it never made it into the system and the county records are sitting in a dusty closet somewhere.

I'm not telling you to have your father lie but if the records can't be found then it's on his conscious on whether he want's to apply and take a chance on getting caught. I've always been one to believe that once someone serves their time they should have all rights restored (All except child molesters and murderers that is) People make mistakes and should get a second chance and sometimes a third. They shouldn't have to pay for them the rest of their life once their penance is paid unless they took a life or took innocence. IMO.


FYI - you can go to the FBI website and pay to have them run a criminal background check on him. The same one they will run when he applies. You can also go to the county or counties where his felonies were commited and have them do the same. If nothing show's up then well, nothing shows up. It's then up to him.

[CC Italian]

It is now well accepted medically that the part of the brain that controls judgment does not fully develop until the early twenties.

This was in my basic psych class over ten years ago and when I went through the education program it was addressed in such theories as Demetriou and Piaget and many others. Piaget is the most famous and widely excepted. Physically most are fully mature by 17 and as young as 14 but mentally it can take as long as 22-24 to fully develop. Funny thing is that your cognitive ability declines pretty much as soon as it peaks just like physical development.

So start quoting Piaget next time your teenager says their an adult. I have had the kids in school read it and while it is addressed in psych classes many really don't think about it. When you actually talk to them and have a debate they start to realize that maybe they could still learn a little form their parents and teachers.

What’s the difference between a graduating high school senior and a college freshman? A summer of drinking and three months.

When you look at it that way it is kind of hard to really look at an 18 year old as an adult but the law does and maybe that's not right but that's the law!

Edit: Then again look at our young service men and women between 17-19. We would defiantly call them adults but it doesn't change the fact that they are not fully mentally developed. It is a weird age your an adult but your not an adult.

[Gambit]

Gambit - I have the exact charge as you and my CHL wasn't revoked. It does expire on my birthday next year so i assume I'm screwed after that....just wondering why yours was revoked after being issued?

Dbox,

I was renewing my Lincense and it brought this added clause (changed in 2009) to thier attention. So If you have a CHL now you will be required to reapply for the license this action brings it to their attention and they will then revoke your current license and deny your renewal.
At least thats what happend in my case.


Sorry for the bad news.

[Gambit]

I think I am with gigag04 on this.

Disagree.

Burg of a hab, while not violent, definitely affects people. Youve been there when you take that report and the wife is too scared to even stay at the ransacked house.

It's defiantly not a victim-less crime in the mental sense! It's one thing if a non violent felon is allowed to own a gun in his home after a certain amount of time. All people should be able to protect themselves in their "castle" (except violent criminals, they have lost their right to own a firearm) but to allow a convicted felon to get a CHL is a little much for me reformed or not.

Carrying around a firearm on your person is a huge responsibility! Let me put it this way; I know it isn't exactly the same thing but would you want a non violent reformed felon to be allowed to become a law enforcement officer and carry a weapon? Heck, you can lose your state teaching license for getting a first offense DWI for ten years!

My point is I think a CHL should be held to the same standard as a LEO when it comes to criminal record. I might get blasted for this by others but it is my opinion but then again you know what they say about opinions. Owning a firearm in your home to me is very different then being allowed to carry a loaded weapon almost everywhere you want, you must have a good track record!

You have a right to your opinions and I respect that. Laws however are absolute and we as humans should not deal in absolutes. There exceptions to every rule and rules for every exception.

What makes you as an individual have more rights than I; to protect your family?

I made a mistake in college egged on by friends, in my youthful stupidity, I made a seriously bad judgment call. I believe the Judge saw the same and granted me deferred adjudication and saw fit to not only grant me with early dismissal from probation; but also granted me an order of nondisclosure.

I believe I have paid my debt to society. I pay more than my fair share of taxes and contribute to society in a productive way. I have not had so much as a speeding ticket since then. The friend’s father house that I broke into forgave me. But the wheels of justice were in motion.
For you to say that your spotless record entitles you to more protection from real hardend criminals than I is a hard pill to swallow. This mentality is along the lines of anti-gun/ anti-CHL congressmen that have CHL’s and carry guns.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics ... ruder.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288737,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After all Laws are absolute, written by men that are felons themselves, Joe Driver (Now a FELON), in this case co-wrote the 30.02 addition I don’t have the Bill number now Irony at its finest.

[Ameer]

After all Laws are absolute, written by men that are felons themselves, Joe Driver (Now a FELON)

If he was convicted then his CHL will be revoked too. Those are the rules.

[Gambit]

After all Laws are absolute, written by men that are felons themselves, Joe Driver (Now a FELON)

If he was convicted then his CHL will be revoked too. Those are the rules.

So be it. I will carry under Floridas CHL those are also the "rules". And I hope National right to carry passes too.

Not to sound spiteful but Im not sure I trust politicians anymore. Whoever submitted the change in 2009 submitted it in a House bill HB2730 which is titled something totally benign and then buried the change in the bill on page 136 (depending on the doc format) . That is very shady in my opinion.

here is the link
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB2730

then goto the last row "ENROLLED" download the pdf file under the "bill" column, scroll down to page 136 at the top of the page is the addition, they buried it there deep.

[urnoodle]

I'm sure most of you will disagree with me but these are my opinions. Although I feel everyone should have a second chance, especially those that committed non-violent crimes in their youth, it is very difficult to excute that belief. My house was burglarized a few years ago. My dog was home alone. By my neighbors estimations, the burglary must have occurred approximately an hour before I arrived home. Ever since, my dog suffers from anxiety attacks when she hears loud noises or someone unfamilar at the door. I am changed by it as well. I'm more alert to noises and unfamilar people or cars in my neighborhood. If I'm awaken at night, I cannot go back to sleep. I obsessively check door locks and alarms wherever I go. I moved hoping to rebuild the sense of security but it had no affect. I've talked with others with similar experiences and everyone said similar things. Once it's gone, you don't get it back. Although the perpetrator did not violate me physically, he or she violated my home, my personal information, my pet and potentially my family and friends homes. He or she made a choice to change my life. If the lasting consequence of that action is that he or she is not permitted by law to have a CHL, then I won't advocate for the adverse. I believe a non-violent offender has a right to personal protection and I will defend his or her right to open carry only. My opinion for a violent offender is that he or she is permitted to have access to firearm in the home only.

[bayouhazard]

Actions have consequences.

Felonious actions can have some serious long term consequence.

[RSJ]

Just FYI a burglary is what got me into CHL in the first place.

I was 18, and just purchased my first shotgun. I came home from school (senior in HS at the time) and felt my front door unlocked. I thought that was odd, but proceeded inside. I saw the backdoor was unlocked... started to get to that ("yellow" zone) of awareness. By the time I made it to my room I saw my window open, and blinds blowing in the wind. That was it. I had never been so scared. I realized 1. that whoever had broken in MAY still be there and 2. I hadn't seen my dog and was worried where he was/if he was alright. I immediately went for my shotgun and it was missing from the usual hiding place. I then grabbed the phone and ran outside, called 911. 15 minutes later two cars showed up and cleared my empty house. They had taken electronics (digital camera) xbox , my firearm, and a few smaller things. To this day the experience and feeling of being violated still is with me. I got an alarm, gun safe, chl, and still wonder if/when the next time will be.

Just my .02
(also not stating my opinion on felonies and CHL, just adding to the "real" impact factor of burglary of a habitation)

[RSJ]

Also, how would the law treat a felon with a gun pre 1899 "gun"? Not carrying, obviously, just owning at home or used in a SD situation?
Just curious (I understand the lack of practicality)