30.06 Signs – What a License To Carry Holder Ought to Know

Business and private property owners in Texas who wish to prohibit concealed handgun holders from carrying concealed handguns often post signs meant to notify patrons that all firearms, including concealed handguns, are prohibited on the premises. These signs come in many different forms, and include, for example, “Gun buster” signs — signs with handguns circled and lined through in red, as well as other signs with various warnings written out. However, business and property owners looking to prevent License to Carry holders from carrying concealed handguns on their property are limited to one type of “No Gun” sign — the “30.06 sign” — and contrary to what many property owners may think, these signs have very specific requirements that must be met in order for the sign to be legally effective.

Appropriately, Texas Penal Code Section 30.06 lays out the requirements for “30.06 signs.” The statute provides that a License to Carry holder carrying a concealed handgun on another person’s property pursuant to his or her handgun license, commits the crime of criminal trespass when they: 1) have not received effective consent to carry the concealed handgun on the property, and 2) have received notice from the property owner that either entry on the property with a concealed handgun was not allowed; or that after having entered the premises, remaining on the property with a concealed handgun is forbidden; and the license holder fails to leave the property.

Effective Consent

The first of these elements — that a license holder has not received effective consent — refers to a License to Carry holder who is on another’s property without the permission of either the property owner or someone who is legally authorized to act for the owner. Essentially, this means that the owner, or someone with his authority, has not explicitly given an individual license holder the right to carry their concealed handgun on the property, and it is not reasonable for the license holder to assume they may carry a concealed handgun on the property. If there is no notice given that carrying is prohibited, and you are otherwise lawfully permitted on that property, your carrying a gun is legal. If a “30.06 sign” is posted, but a property owner verbally consents to a person carrying, effective consent is established.

What is notice?

The second element — that a license holder receive notice either that (1) License to Carry holders with concealed handguns are forbidden from entering the property, or (2) that they may not continue to stay on the property after entering it while in possession of a concealed handgun — is the element that more frequently causes concern and leads to questions from many license holders.

Section (b) of TPC 30.06 states that a person is considered to have received notice if the owner of the property, or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner, provides notice by oral or written communication that the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited. For instance, notice is given when a business or property owner verbally informs a license holder that concealed handguns are not allowed on the property. More commonly, a business or property owner will provide one of two forms of written communication — a card or other written document given to the individual, or a posted sign displayed to the public.

A card or other written document given to a license holder must contain the following text in English, word-for-word:

“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

If a property owner chooses to give written notice to everyone entering the property without having to notify each person individually, they can choose to post a sign. A “30.06 sign” must contain the following: 1) the proper statutory language (written above) in both English and Spanish; 2) words posted in block letters; 3) that are one-inch in height; 4) appearing in contrasting colors; and 5) the sign must be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Questions of Interpretation

Despite having a number of specific requirements, the language of the statute, while appearing to be clear, may unfortunately raise a lot of questions about what a proper “30.06 sign” should look like. The potential for different interpretations of the statute has led to many “30.06 signs” being posted in businesses around the state that may not actually comply with the specific legal requirements of the statute, and thus are technically ineffective at providing notice.

For example, a sign posted in a restaurant may have the correct language in both English and Spanish, but it may have block letters that are only half an inch tall, falling short of the 1” height requirement; or, the sign may have the correct wording in block letters 1” high, but the letters are orange, and the background is in yellow, thus raising the question of whether the text sufficiently “contrasts” with the background. Further, suppose that a 30.06 warning in both English and Spanish is posted in white letters affixed to the clear glass window of a convenience store. Does this warning constitute a proper “sign,” and if so, are the white letters considered to be contrasting with the clear window?

A 30.06 sign is required to be displayed in a “conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.” How exactly is this to be accomplished? The statute does not specify exactly where a 30.06 sign should be posted on property. Should a sign be posted at every entrance of a business, so that any license holder coming into the building is immediately made aware that they may not legally carry a concealed handgun on the property? Does a sign posted behind the counter of a hostess’ station at a restaurant meet the definition of “conspicuous and clearly visible?”

Unfortunately, in the seventeen years that the statute has been in effect, there have been no Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or appellate court cases that provide any interpretation of the specifics of the statute. This leaves license holders at risk of being arrested for criminal trespass, even when a sign may not comply with the law! It is a Class C misdemeanor to ignore the 30.06 sign, however, refusing to leave when directed to can lead to arrest and charges of criminal trespass by a License to Carry holder faces a Class A misdemeanor, which carries with it a potential sentence of one year in jail, and/or a fine of up to $4,000.

A license holder may be able to raise the defense at trial that the sign was noncompliant, and thus they did not receive proper notice as required by the statute. To do this, they need to be able to articulate specific facts that support their notion that they did not receive adequate notice. Ultimately, however, it is going to be up to a judge or jury to decide whether or not the license holder did in fact receive notice from a sign. A jury may determine that even if the sign did not meet the exact legal specifications in the statute, it was “close enough” to provide notice that license holders could not carry their concealed handguns on the property.

Conclusion

The lesson to be learned from all this is that even if a noncompliant “30.06 sign” is posted at a business or on private property, a license holder choosing to carry their concealed handgun on the premises may still run the risk of being arrested and charged with criminal trespass, and then processed into the criminal justice system. Also, it is important to remember that even if a sign is not 30.06 compliant, that at any time a license holder can be given verbal notice in words as simple as “concealed handguns are not allowed here,” thus making the concealed handgun carrying license holder a trespasser if he fails to leave.

Practically speaking, as a License to Carry holder, it is wise to keep one’s eyes and ears open for any 30.06 notice that might be given on private property; and when a “30.06 sign” is seen, it may be best to refrain from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises, even if the sign does not appear to comply with the exact letter of the law.

A 30.06 sign only restricts concealed carrying in that premises and 30.07 sign only restricts the open carrying in that premises. Both signs are required to restrict all carrying in that premises.

 

TX Governor-Elect Abbott: I’ll Sign Open Carry Handgun Bill As Soon As It Reaches My Desk

From http://www.breitbart.com

TX Governor-Elect Abbott: I’ll Sign Open Carry Handgun Bill As Soon As It Reaches My Desk 31117 296 776 by AWR Hawkins 5 Nov 2014 491 post a comment Texas Governor-elect Greg Abbott (R) says he will sign a bill to legalize the open carry of handguns as soon as the legislation reaches his desk. Abbott spoke to reporters in Austin the morning after he won the Lone Star State’s gubernatorial election. According to WFAA 8 ABC, Abbot said: “If an open carry bill is passed by the House and Senate, I will sign it into law.” Abbott added, “If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for Texas.” It is interesting to note that open carry of rifles is already legal in Texas. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America has hung its hat on protesting the open carry of rifles in that state. Abbott is determined to be sure Texans will have the choice to carry a handgun openly with their rifle, if they so choose. Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

 

H.R. 4380: Game changing gun legislation?

hr4380

 

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2014 — There is a bill in Washington, quietly introduced by Steve Stockman, R-Texas, which has the potential to change the game on national gun politics. Of course there are many bills which sit idly on agendas, on committees, waiting to be read by those who could probably care less about its success or passage. All of these bills concerning firearm rights have a potential impact on the freedoms of American gun owners and the gun industry, but what makes H.R. 4380 different from most of those pieces of legislation is that it will be significant before it even passes.

According to https://www.govtrack.us/ only 11% of bills introduced in the previous legislative session have made it passed committee, while a meager 2% actually were signed into law. The legislative tracking site gives H.R. 4380 a 9% chance of making it past committee, and a lofty 2% probability of being signed.

H.R. 4380 is the Gun Confiscation and Registration Prevention Act.

Why is it important?

So happy you asked.

The bill is short and sweet, so short it is included below.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Gun Confiscation and Registration

Prevention Act”.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING GUN CONFISCATION AND REGISTRATION.

None of the funds made available through the NICS Improvement

Amendments Act of 2007 or the Community Oriented Policing Services

[COPS] Program shall be provided to any jurisdiction which:

(a) maintains a registry of gun ownership; or

(b) conducts a program of gun confiscation directed at any firearm

which is not prohibited by Federal law or any group of persons who are

not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law.”

What this bill is, whether or not intended by the pro-gun Congressman from Texas, is a test. It is a test to discern who among the United States Congress, and the United States Senate, are potential proponents of gun registration in the United States. It feels out who is for and who is against gun confiscation in the United States.

If this bill passes committee and comes to a vote, it has the potential to put every politician in the House on record for being pro-registration or anti-registration, right before the 2014 elections, and in plenty of time for the 2016 cycle. Americans will simply look at the title of the bill, they will look at who is sponsoring it, and who is opposing it, and they will have a clear picture as to who in Congress supports their right to bear arms, and who in Congress is seeking to subvert that right.

This bill is a win-win for the Republicans, and a terrible losing situation for the Democrats.

For the Republicans, the result of this bill can only end up gaining them political traction. If it passes, they get to go to their constituents to say how they fought for their right to bear arms, how they fought against a leviathan, overreaching government who was coming for their guns. They get to enjoy the favor of the gun lobby, they get to put this victory under their belt, a stamp on the side of their legislative fighter jet, and they get to enjoy the spoils of their triumph.

If it fails to pass, they get to point to every single nay vote in the room and paint them as vehemently anti-gun. They get to beg the gun lobby for more money to help oust the gun grabbers in Congress, and they get to whip American gun owners up into a frenzy, they get to turn the 2014 elections into a gun-centric debate, and if the Republicans take the majority of the victories, they get to say it is a referendum on gun rights.

For the Democrats, this bill backs them right up into a corner. By opposing this bill, which most of them will, it puts their name down in history as politicians who opposed legislation essentially preventing the registration and confiscation of firearms in the United States of America. We have heard for years during the recent gun-control debates that Liberal anti-gun politicians are not out to take away our guns, they are not coming for our right to bear arms, and that Conservative pundits and redneck voters are just paranoid.

This puts the cards on the table. If this bill passes the House and goes to the Senate, then the Democrat run chamber will most likely defeat it, providing fodder for their enemies. They too will be painted as anti-gun and pro-registration, and the gun lobby will throw support behind whoever is willing to challenge them in primary and general elections.

If this for some reason is able to pass the House and the Senate, with every single yay and nay vote a matter of public record, it of course will be up to the President to sign it. If he signs it, the Federal government will be unable to use their money to promote the confiscation and registration of firearms in the United States. If he does not sign it, the Democrats become the party that is pro-gun registration and confiscation, and chaos will ensue.

The Liberal media will do their best to downplay the significance of the bill, they will say how it doesn’t really mean “confiscate” like people think. They will spin it to make the American people believe that because this bill was passed, countless lives will be lost, or because it was vetoed, countless lives were saved.

This bill is important, it draws an important line in the sand and forces Washington to pick sides. If it makes it out of committee, a move the Republicans would be foolish not to make, then it will put politicians on record for being pro-confiscation, despite years of apologists saying otherwise. It will cement a victory for the 2nd Amendment, it will energize American gun owners, and perhaps it will restore a little bit of faith that there are those in government who actually believe in limiting the power and scope of the Federal leviathan. This bill does not need to pass to make in impact, it does not need resounding support for it to have national repercussions, its passage would be monumental, but its failure would speak louder and more defiantly than its victory.
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/h-r-4380-game-changing-gun-legislation-14877/#mlH9x0mJJLijMyrb.99

 

Texas Open Carry

From NRAILA

Texas: Senate Committee to Hold Interim Hearing on Open Carry and Loosening Restrictions on your Gun Rights Tomorrow

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (R) has charged the Texas Senate Committee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs & Homeland Security with studying and making recommendations on removing barriers in Texas to the exercise of your Second Amendment rights.  Those recommendations include open carry legislation, which is expected to be filed in the 2015 legislative session.  This committee will hold a public hearing tomorrow, April 7 at 9:00 a.m. in Room E1.016 of the State Capitol.  Invited testimony will be taken, along with public comment.

 

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/texas-senate-committee-to-hold-interim-hearing-on-open-carry-and-loosening-restrictions-on-your-gun-rights-on-monday.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

 

FBI Confirms Crime Is Down While Gun Sales Are Up

SAF.org

The FBI’s semi-annual uniform crime data for the first half of 2013 confirms once again what the firearms community already knew, that violent crime has continued to decline while gun sales have continued to climb.

The report says murders declined 6.9 percent from the first half of 2012, while aggravated assaults dropped by 6.6 percent nationwide and robberies were down 1.8 percent. Forcible rapes declined 10.6 percent from the same period in 2012 and overall, violent crime fell by 10.6 percent in non-metropolitan counties and 3.6 percent in metropolitan counties.

Take our ‘Guns Save Lives Poll’ to voice your own opinions on the correlation between gun sales rising and violent crime declining.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR ‘GUNS SAVE LIVES’ POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

This new information reinforces the notion that not only do guns save lives, their presence in the hands and homes of law-abiding citizens just might be a deterrent to crime. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been reporting a steady increase in firearm sales for the past few years.

Taken as a whole, one cannot help but conclude that the predictions from gun prohibitionists that more guns leads to more crime have been consistently wrong.

The tired argument from the anti-gun lobby that more firearms in the hands of private citizens would result in sharp increases in violence has run out of traction. Not only has the decline in crime corresponded with an increase in gun sales, it also coincides with a steady rise in the number of citizens obtaining concealed carry licenses and permits.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR ‘GUNS SAVE LIVES’ POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

The FBI report says burglaries and auto theft have also decreased and it is impossible to look at this pattern and not suggest that increased gun ownership just might be one contributing factor. Gun prohibitionists would, of course, dismiss that suggestion as poppycock, but you can bet your life savings that if the data was reversed, and violent crime had risen, the gun control lobby would be rushing to every available microphone declaring that guns were to blame.

This continuing pattern brings up a pertinent question. If the gun ban lobby has been so wrong about more guns resulting in more crime, what else have they been wrong about? The word ‘everything’ comes to mind. One thing about criminal predators is that they don’t want to risk getting shot by an intended victim.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR ‘GUNS SAVE LIVES’ POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

We currently have over twenty open court cases throughout the United States defending our Second Amendment.

We earned multiple victories in the court systems throughout 2013. These victories ranged from challenges to a public housing gun ban along with multiple victories to protect conceal carry laws in separate states. We hope to close many more of these cases in 2014.

The Second Amendment Foundation is a grassroots organization which means we are funded by the people whose rights we are trying to protect. It is not popular to contribute or stand united with pro-gun organizations.

We do not have big shot donors like the big anti-gun groups. You hard working, Second Amendment loving patriots keep our doors open and we appreciate everything you do for us.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR ‘GUNS SAVE LIVES’ POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

 

Good for Remington & the Gov of Alabama !

 JUST LOVE IT!     ;-)
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) Doesn’t Want Them
Remington, one of the world’s largest gun manufacturers, will on Monday join Gov. Robert Bentley (R) to announce they are bringing over 2,000 jobs to Alabama .
Most of the jobs will be relocated from their Ilion, NY plant, and the initial investment in Alabama will be $87 million.
Founded in 1816 in upstate New York , the company is one of the nation’s old…est continuously operating manufacturers.
Remington is the only U.S. manufacturer of both firearms and ammunition products and one of the largest domestic producers of shotguns and rifles.
Remington first began considering new locations after the New York legislature passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act in response to the tragic shootings in Newtown , Conn.
It broadened the definition of so-called “assault weapons” to include a wide range of guns, including the Bushmaster, which was being manufactured at Remington’s New York plant.
A month ago Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) said “extreme conservatives” who are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” have “no place in the state of New York .”
Gov. Bentley responded “In Alabama we strongly support and uphold our great U.S. Constitution on which our nation and our states were founded.
“The Constitution serves to protect individual freedoms.
Among them are those guaranteed in the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
We will protect the freedoms of individuals and welcome any one or any company to Alabama to discover as so many have, that we are a pro-business state filled with good, hardworking people.

“If Gov. Cuomo doesn’t want hard working pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment people in his state, we will gladly take them here in Alabama .”

 

Texas Law Shield Newsletter

When Do I Lose My Gun Rights?

 

When does someone lose the legal right to purchase or possess a firearm? Can a person get their firearms rights restored, and if so, when and how? What legal infractions (serious or minor) affect a person’s legal rights and in particular their firearms rights?

 

These types of questions are some of the more frequent asked by members. This means that many may not understand exactly what the legal consequences are of criminal punishments or the present ramifications of their pleading to a crime in the past. During a criminal proceeding a district attorney (D.A. for short) may have attempted to persuade someone that a guilty plea is the fastest way to put a criminal charge behind them and move on with their life, and that it would not have long lasting effects.

 

BE WARNED, not understanding the repercussions of a plea agreement could lead to economic difficulties, reducing what types of careers a person can pursue, making it difficult to live where they want, and importantly losing the ability to purchase a gun, or to even possess a gun outside of their home. This is intense but important information.

 

This article, the first in a two part series, will cover what types of crimes and outcomes can affect a person’s firearms rights. The follow-up article will cover when, how, and if someone can clear their record and restore their rights.

 

What are the types of crimes in Texas?

 

In Texas, there are two categories of crimes: felonies and misdemeanors.  A felony is a serious crime that the state has determined is possibly deserving of prison for a long time. A misdemeanor is a less serious crime which could possibly end with only a fine. For the purposes of a person’s gun rights, including their right to get or keep a concealed handgun license, both can have a devastating effect. While there are different classes of felonies, all felony convictions (but not deferred adjudications which will be discussed) are treated the same for purposes of determining what firearms rights a person does or does not have. However, the different classes of misdemeanors in Texas can impact a person’s firearms rights in different ways. These misdemeanors can be Class A, B, or C misdemeanors. Additionally, a finding of family violence on a misdemeanor is fundamentally different than other types of misdemeanors. Therefore, the three categories of crimes which will be discussed are felonies, misdemeanors with a finding of family violence, and Class A, Class B, or Class C misdemeanors.

 

What happens if a person is charged?

 

If a person finds themself charged with a felony offense
in Texas, the possible outcomes from a grand jury are:
– No-bill, where the grand jury does not find probable cause that a person committed a crime. The charges will end, unless the D.A. finds additional evidence to present the case again.

– True bill, where the grand jury does find probable cause that a person committed a crime. An indictment will be filed against them and the case will continue to the next court phase.

 

If a person finds themself charged with a misdemeanor, there is no requirement that the grand jury review the case and the D.A. will proceed with the prosecution.
The possible outcomes of a criminal case, regardless of whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor, are as follows:

 

– Dismissal of the charge because it is dropped by the D.A. This can happen at any point before the rendering of a verdict at the D.A.’s discretion. If the case is dismissed before the jury is sworn in, the case may be refiled and prosecuted if it is before the statute of limitations ends.

 

– Pre-trial diversion or intervention, sometimes also known as deferred prosecution. This is a program that is sometimes available as part of a negotiation agreement with the D.A. that results in a dismissal if the terms of the agreement are completed successfully. If a person violates the agreement, the D.A. can continue to prosecute the case against them.

 

– Deferred adjudication where a person pleads guilty to the crime but the judge withholds accepting the plea. Instead the court will set forth certain requirements of court supervision for a certain number of years, months, or days, which could include community service, fines, education, counseling, etc.  If a person completes the court’s requirements, the case will be dismissed and no conviction will result from their guilty plea.  If they violate the court’s orders, their guilty plea will be entered and they will be convicted.

 

–  Guilty or “No Contest” pleas will have the same impact on a person’s criminal history, a conviction and sentencing. However, a no contest or “Nolo Contendre” plea cannot be considered an admission of guilt and used against them in a civil suit based on the act for which they were criminally prosecuted.

 

– Guilty verdict after trial that ends in a conviction, after which a person will be sentenced.

 

– Not guilty verdict after trial is an acquittal and will restore a person’s freedom from court entanglements for that criminal charge.

 

What is a conviction?

 

A finding of guilty after a plea, a trial, or a broken deferred adjudication, is a conviction that will follow a person forever (except in the rare occasion of a pardon). There are a number of reasons why receiving a conviction for a crime can be a bad thing. Punishment for a conviction can be fines and court costs, probation, and/or incarceration in jail or prison. A conviction can be detrimental in the future as well. Being charged and convicted of the same crime a second time can lead to harsher punishment. Also all sorts of people screen for convictions including employers, organizations, and even financial institutions. Importantly, a conviction will impact a person’s right to purchase or possess a firearm as well as their ability to qualify for a CHL.

 

What happens if a person has received a felony conviction?

 

Receiving any felony conviction will strip a person of many of their legal rights. Amongst others, they permanently lose the right to purchase a firearm.  Further, under both state and federal law, they cannot possess a firearm.

Interestingly, Texas allows for an exception that after five years from release from confinement, or release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever comes later, a felon may possess a firearm only at the premises where they live. However, firearm possession not on the premises where that person lives, i.e., hunting trip, going to the shooting range, or other similar activities would continue to be illegal under state law. Federal law states that a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm anywhere, under any circumstances. A person is also permanently disqualified from having a concealed handgun license, as being eligible to purchase a firearm is a requirement for a Texas CHL.

 

It “ain’t” a felony anymore.

 

What about a crime that was a felony (like marijuana possession was in the 1960s) that is today a misdemeanor or even legal? The Texas legislature weighed in on this so that a person with a felony conviction for a crime that is no longer classified as a felony is no longer a disqualified felon for firearms purposes. This means that they are no longer a felon for purposes of possessing a firearm under state law. However, the federal law has no such exception.

What happens if a person has received deferred adjudication for a felony?

 

Even though a deferred adjudication will help a person avoid a felony conviction, it does not result in a completely blank slate. A deferred adjudication will have probationary requirements; and unless it is sealed, an arrest and the fact a person was under court supervision will continue to show up on that person’s record. For purposes of a deferred adjudication for a felony, until it is completed, a person remains under indictment for the felony. This means that they will not be able to purchase a firearm, and will likely have their CHL revoked until they have completed the terms of the deferred adjudication and become re-eligible. Further, as a condition of any deferred adjudication, the court may order someone not to possess any firearms. Once the court supervision is successfully completed, they will be discharged and the case dismissed.  This means that that person will be able to lawfully possess and purchase firearms under both state and federal law. Additionally, for many crimes, a person again becomes eligible for a CHL 10 years after the date the court ordered the deferred adjudication.

However certain crimes, even though a person received a deferred adjudication, will still disqualify them from ever obtaining a CHL. These crimes include murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, false imprisonment, felony sexual offenses, felony assaultive offenses, robbery, aggravated robbery, felony violation of a protective order, and burglary of a habitation (including the intent to commit another felony during the burglary).

 

What happens if a person has received a conviction on a misdemeanor with a finding of family violence?

 

Any Class A, Class B, or Class C misdemeanor conviction where the court entered a finding that the criminal act constituted family violence will prevent a person from purchasing firearms from a licensed firearms dealer for the remainder of their life. As a result, they will be disqualified from obtaining a CHL, since being able to purchase a firearm is a requirement for CHL eligibility. A conviction for a Class A misdemeanor which includes a finding of family violence will also prevent anyone from possessing a firearm for five years from their release from confinement, release from probation, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever comes later. Unlike a felony conviction, however, once this period has passed Texas law will allow the person to possess firearms outside of the premises at which they live. Unfortunately, federal law imposes a permanent prohibition on firearms possession, just as it does for convicted felons.

What happens if a person has received deferred adjudication on a misdemeanor with a finding of family violence?

 

deferred adjudication on a misdemeanor crime with a finding of family violence will prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm or obtaining a CHL while the deferred adjudication is pending. Once the deferred adjudication has been completed, they will be able to purchase and possess firearms again.  However they will be required to wait for five years after the date of the deferred adjudication to regain their eligibility to have a CHL.

What happens if a person has received a conviction or deferred adjudication on a Class A, Class B, or Class C misdemeanor with no finding of family violence?

 

Class A, Class B, or Class C misdemeanor conviction or deferred adjudication will not prohibit a person’s purchase or possession of firearms, excepting findings of family violence as outlined above. Although a misdemeanor conviction or deferred adjudication will not affect their firearms rights, it could impair their ability to obtain a Texas CHL.
Any conviction or deferred adjudication for a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or a Class C charge of disorderly conduct will disqualify a person from obtaining a CHL or suspend their CHL for five years.  Further, in a little known eligibility requirement, the Texas DPS will not issue a CHL to, or will suspend the CHL of, a person who has twice been convicted or received deferred adjudication for Class A or Class B misdemeanors within 10 years of their application for crimes that involve the use of alcohol or controlled substances. This is because the law has deemed them to be a “chemically dependent person” and therefore unqualified for a Texas CHL.

As you can see, the negative ramifications of criminal punishments and sentences are far reaching and may have lifelong consequences. Stay tuned for our follow-up newsletter detailing what options may be available if you have found yourself continuously impacted by a criminal charge long, long ago.

 

 

The Public Image Toward Gun Rights Has Never Been Better

SAF.org

The Public Image Toward Gun Rights Has Never Been Better


Gun lovers are making all of the positive headlines this week. Thousands of CT residents refusing to register their firearms, The Boston Globe published an article showing the ineffectiveness of gun buyback programs, the Missouri Senate advanced a Bill that would nullify all federal anti-gun laws, and the NH State Legislature overwhelmingly voted against universal background checks.

We are only used to seeing negative headlines in the mainstream media concerning gun rights. All of this recent positive exposure shows our hard work is paying off, the balance of power is reversing, and the overall outlook on our Second Amendment Rights has never been more positive.

We must continue our unrelenting pressure on the anti-gunners to get the truth about gun rights to every person in our Country. The Second Amendment Foundation will not rest until every citizen’s Second Amendment Rights are protected from coast to coast.

SELECT HERE TO HELP THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION PROTECT OUR RIGHTS FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS!


Connecticut passed outrageous anti-gun legislation in 2013 and it appears residents of the state are completely disregarding the new laws. 50,000 residents have registered their now classified “assault weapons”. The only catch is, the state estimates there could be as many as 350,000 “assault weapons” that citizens are choosing not to register.

The penalty for not registering these firearms is a class D felony. Unless they want to track down 300,000 law-abiding gun owners they should just scrap this draconian anti-gun law. These Second Amendment patriots are making a stand together and the country is hearing you loud and clear. Registering a firearm is just about the last thing a law-abiding gun owner wants to do.

SELECT HERE TO HELP THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION PROTECT OUR RIGHTS FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS!


The Boston Globe recently published an article on the ineffectiveness of gun buyback programs. Below is what we already knew about gun buyback programs but now is out there for the public to see:

“…there is no compelling evidence that gun buyback programs are an effective crime-fighting tool or that they reduce the rates of crime,” said Jon Vernick, co-director of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

“… A 2003 study of buyback programs nationwide by Anthony Braga, a crime specialist who is now a professor at Rutgers University, found that the programs had no impact on gun crime or gun-related injuries, and that the programs do not target guns highly likely to be used in violence…”

If anything, a gun buyback program would help criminals. You bring your firearm to this event, turn it in with no questions asked, and you receive a gift card or new shoes. That gun could have been stolen, used in a murder or in an armed robbery, and the police just destroyed the evidence. It certainly does not make a lot of sense.

SELECT HERE TO HELP THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION PROTECT OUR RIGHTS FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS!


The New Hampshire House of Representatives just shot down a Bill that would have required a background check for every private gun sale. All we have heard from the mainstream media and the Obama Administration is that nearly every American supports Background checks that contain universal registration of gun owners. Then we see a blue state such as New Hampshire pass a bipartisan vote to stop such a law. Once again, it appears their numbers may be just a little misjudged by the Obama camp.

Another state making waves in the gun rights world is Missouri. The Missouri State Senate just advanced a Bill that would make it a crime for any federal, state or local law enforcement office to attempt to enforce federal gun control laws within the state. The law even allows for arresting and fining officers who try to do so. The bill would also lower the carry age from 21 to 19 as well allow open carry anywhere in the state, even in cities which have local bans on the practice.

The Bill needs to pass one more vote in the state Senate, then it would go to a vote in the state House, and if passed would have to be signed into law by the state governor.

SELECT HERE TO HELP THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION PROTECT OUR RIGHTS FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS!


It is so reassuring to see our cities and states making such a difference in the fight to protect the Second Amendment. It helps us realize that each and every one of us can make a difference in this fight.

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

P.S. Remember, the anti-gunners are raising tens of thousands of dollars to steal our rights from us — we need your support now to help stop them dead in their tracks!

To send a check, please mail to:
Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
Dept Code 144
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Paid for by Second Amendment Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax deductible. Copyright © 2014 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.