TexasCHLforum.com

It's similar to the Brady Bunch with their harping on Harlon Carter being a "felon"

Carter, as a teenager, had been convicted of killing another person, and the conviction was overturned. The anti gun nuts used to love to pick on this, pointing out that the NRA had a felon in its top ranks, someone who was undoubtedly a gun owner and carrier.

They always conveniently forgot to mention that Carter had had a long and distinguished career with the U.S. Border Patrol, eventually rising to head of the agency, and that the "technicality" that they claim the conviction was overturned on was the defense's not being allowed to use self defense as a defense by the judge who was the prosecutor's father in law.

txinvestigator wrote:

IcheeWaWa wrote:I think it means that a person is placed on probation for a period of time. If the person doesn't get in any more trouble, the case is dismissed at the end of that term. Basically, the judge defers judgement for a specified time. The violation still appears on that person's criminal history. Someone here can probably answer it better than I can.

Pretty much. The reason it counts as a conviction for CHL and other purposes (Private Security being one) is that to get such a judgment, the person has to plea Guilty or No contest or be found guilty.

Read specifics here; http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#42.12.00

I think it counts as a conviction because it assumes guilt. That is wrong but that is the way it is. No plea is actually entered; the plea is only entered if you fail to live up to the terms of the Deferred Adjudication.

As we all know, deferred adjudication is becoming a $$$ scam (especially as it relates to traffic tickets), and everybody has caught on, especially insurance companies who also consider deferred adjudication a conviction.

Looks like Judges need to go back to old-fashioned deferred adjudication, where you stand in front of the judge and he scolds you and postpones trial for 90 days. Then come back and he dismisses charges. That technically would not be deferred adjudication, that would be judge dismissing charges for reasons he chooses not to make public.