TexasCHLforum.com

I am wanting to apply but I am not sure if I will qualify. I thought someone here might be able to give me some insight. Below are my infractions will I be able?
1996 Public intox
1996 disordely conduct
2004 DWI Class B mis
2008 Public intox
2008 simple assault class b mis

I know it is not a sparkling record but is it too bad to qualify? Or do I have to wait a time period before I can apply?
HELP please

thanks in advance for any info

Nothing personal, but if you were looking at someone's record and it looked like that, do you think they should be trusted to carry a concealed weapon?

(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been
convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under
Section 42.01, Penal Code;

An individual who has been convicted two times within
the10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for
a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater
that involves the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory
element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for
purposes of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under
this subchapter.

newblood, welcome to the forum.

I'm sorry but I have to say that in my opinion(and I am not a lawyer. Please consult an attorney for a legal opinion), that you may not qualify for a CHL.

Please read carefully the General Code of the Texas Statutes "GC 411.172. Eligiblity"

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetFo ... CHL-16.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am by no means an lawyer, but based on what little I do know, I basically have a better chance of getting dual citizenship with N.Korea or Iran than you do getting a CHL right now. Based on current laws, I would say that if you keep your nose clean between now and the fifth aniversary of your most recent class B misdemeanor conviction's sentence has been completed, meaning after you have completed your public service/probation or whatever, then you might have a shot. Anything is possible of course, but I wouldn't waste my money if I were you.

Looks like the earliest you should apply is 2014 after the date of your 2004 Public Intox conviction has passed, assuming you don't have any more convictions in the mean time. Under the law, the state considers you to be chemically dependent.

Also looks like you might want to get some help with the drinking problem and resolve whatever issues are involved with that. You have a documented twelve year history of drunkeness. Anything you can do to prove that you've reformed will help when applying in 2014. Joining alcoholics anonymous would be a good first step. Even if you're not an alcoholic, the meetings will help you and will cost you nothing except your time.

newblood wrote:Below are my infractions will I be able?

Nope.

Grog wrote:Nothing personal, but if you were looking at someone's record and it looked like that, do you think they should be trusted to carry a concealed weapon?

I've applied a bit of literary license to Grog's response above. It reminds me of something my dear old Mother would ask.

Grog wrote:Nothing personal, but if you were looking at someone's record and it looked like that, do you think they should be trusted to carry a concealed weapon?

Well, let's look at it another way... Exactly where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that anyone's right to bear arms should be infringed in any way?

CollinLeon wrote:

Grog wrote:Nothing personal, but if you were looking at someone's record and it looked like that, do you think they should be trusted to carry a concealed weapon?

Well, let's look at it another way... Exactly where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that anyone's right to bear arms should be infringed in any way?

Where in the 1st amendment does it say you can walk into a crowded theater and yell fire?

Where does it say that a peace officer who shoots someone in the exercise of his duties constitutes a seizure under the 4th amendment?

Where does it say that a juvenile sexual assault victim's testimony heard in court via CCTV from an undisclosed room meets the conditions set forth in the 6th amendment regarding the right to confront one's accusers?

gigag04 wrote:Where in the 1st amendment does it say you can walk into a crowded theater and yell fire?

Where does it say that a peace officer who shoots someone in the exercise of his duties constitutes a seizure under the 4th amendment?

Where does it say that a juvenile sexual assault victim's testimony heard in court via CCTV from an undisclosed room meets the conditions set forth in the 6th amendment regarding the right to confront one's accusers?

Yeah, just goes to show you how screwed up lawyers are... They think that the Constitution is up for interpretation.

I'm pretty sure that even our founding fathers would not have approved of the town lunatic walking around with a loaded gun. No right in the Constitution is absolute and undeniable. That's where the legislature and the courts come in - to define what the boundaries are. And we the people get to decide if we like the decisions they make and replace them if we don't. But I don't think it's all unreasonable to ask someone to get their life under control before we place the power of life and death in their hands.

CollinLeon wrote:

Grog wrote:Nothing personal, but if you were looking at someone's record and it looked like that, do you think they should be trusted to carry a concealed weapon?

Well, let's look at it another way... Exactly where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that anyone's right to bear arms should be infringed in any way?

That's irrelevant.

The question in the opening post was, "under the law, do I qualify for a CHL?" The answer is, "under the law, no you don't."

The question wasn't "does this constitute an infringement of my constitutional rights?" My suggestion is, if you want to start a thread about the constitutionality of CHL law, by all means do so. That is not this thread.

CollinLeon wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Where in the 1st amendment does it say you can walk into a crowded theater and yell fire?

Where does it say that a peace officer who shoots someone in the exercise of his duties constitutes a seizure under the 4th amendment?

Where does it say that a juvenile sexual assault victim's testimony heard in court via CCTV from an undisclosed room meets the conditions set forth in the 6th amendment regarding the right to confront one's accusers?

Yeah, just goes to show you how screwed up lawyers are... They think that the Constitution is up for interpretation.

He's not a lawyer. He's a cop. By the way, you are interpreting the Constitution also. I'm just sayin'....

[quote="The Annoyed Man"
He's not a lawyer. He's a cop. By the way, you are interpreting the Constitution also. I'm just sayin'....[/quote]

Perhaps, but my interpretation is better... I believe that the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were saying and MEANT it when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Come on... They did not see fit to give women the right to vote... Can't get much more insightful than THAT, right? We have taken a beautiful document and have unfortunately corrupted it over the years...