Wa state CWP/CPL denied!!! , told to surender guns!

[Alex220]

Being charged with a felony won't get your permit revoked nor one's weapons taken away. A CONVICTION, however, is a different thing. Being charged with anything is meaningless and empty till the gavel comes down with a disposition, and would violate due process to act on a charge until a court had a finding.

What state are you talking about with your example? And my guess is that your client would have been CONVICTED for a permit revocation to have taken place..in which case, it shows that the system works.

Also, a Felony charge doesn't have to equate to being a 'violent criminal'.. apples and oranges.

I'm curious about details of this case..

 

[BC1]

Being charged with a felony won't get your permit revoked nor one's weapons taken away. A CONVICTION, however, is a different thing. Being charged with anything is meaningless and empty till the gavel comes down with a disposition, and would violate due process to act on a charge until a court had a finding.

What state are you talking about with your example? And my guess is that your client would have been CONVICTED for a permit revocation to have taken place..in which case, it shows that the system works.

Also, a Felony charge doesn't have to equate to being a 'violent criminal'.. apples and oranges.

I'm curious about details of this case..

Correct in your assessment. He was charged with the felony and the permit was revoked... without due process. He'll plead to the misdemeanor and will probably get his permit back, with some wrangling. The crminal procedure law does not have a provision that allows for this so his rights are being violated.

 

[TooCalm]

When you sign your Washington CPL application, you waive your rights to confidentiality when it comes to mental health background info..

We sign a release here to, but the point is that I was denied on the opinion of one man. He did not have to prove his accusation in a court room before a judge. The burden of proof was turned around. In order to get my 2nd amendment right back I had to pay one of his hand picked buddies to do a substance abuse evaluation on me. After his buddy sent him the results he then notified the sheriffs department that my gun right should be restored. How did one man get that kind of power in the USA? It's unconstitutional.

 

[Alex220]

Correct in your assessment. He was charged with the felony and the permit was revoked... without due process. He'll plead to the misdemeanor and will probably get his permit back, with some wrangling. The crminal procedure law does not have a provision that allows for this so his rights are being violated.

Are you talking Washington State? He was CHARGED only and lost his permit? Do you mean he was convicted of the Felony?

 

[Alex220]

We sign a release here to, but the point is that I was denied on the opinion of one man. He did not have to prove his accusation in a court room before a judge. The burden of proof was turned around. In order to get my 2nd amendment right back I had to pay one of his hand picked buddies to do a substance abuse evaluation on me. After his buddy sent him the results he then notified the sheriffs department that my gun right should be restored. How did one man get that kind of power in the USA? It's unconstitutional.

It sounds like the system worked, as your firearm rights were restored. It also sounds like the decision to deny based on mental health background information wasn't due to the other guy, but to your statements. The information being available to those doing the background investigation. Were you involuntarily committed at one point?

 

[BC1]

Are you talking Washington State? He was CHARGED only and lost his permit? Do you mean he was convicted of the Felony?

No, this is in NY. He lost his permit when he was charged. The D.A. is willing to reduce to a misdemeanor if he pleads guilty. He has not yet formally accepted the offer. In NY, the criminal procedure law allows for revocation of the permit under certain circumstances, such as family court actions or issuance of a protection order. But this poor guy got railroaded. I heard from the attorney late today who told me he'll get his permit back if he takes the offer.

 

[slag_it!]

Greetings everyone.


I do have a Assault 4 conviction on my record from 3 years ago, I was ensured by judge, prosecutor, and attorney that my assault charge wont affect my rights when it comes to owning a firearm because it is non DV, and it is not a felony, instead a Gross Misdemeanor.


:

If you look at the Washington Conceal Pistol License on the Department of Licensing website a conviction of Assault 4 is a disqualifying factor. I suggest having your records expunged and sealed. Contact a lawyer

 

[Hoganbeg]

Keep in mind that ultimately ANY conviction may put you at risk because the licensing requirements may not prohibit you today but the laws may change tomorrow to exclude you. Lessons learned: keep your nose clean and NEVER plead guilty if you can avoid it. What one judge giveth, another taketh away!

 

[Alex220]

If you look at the Washington Conceal Pistol License on the Department of Licensing website a conviction of Assault 4 is a disqualifying factor. I suggest having your records expunged and sealed. Contact a lawyer

no..not exactly.


the disqualifier is if the Assault 4° is DV related.. and ONLY if it's DV related.

for instance:

if you run up to someone...and throw a pie in a strangers face.. that's Assault 4°

and that's NOT a CPL disqualifier.


if you push your wife/girlfriend/ex-girlfriend/child/step-child etc.. down to the ground.. that's DV Assault 4°

and that IS a CPL disqualifier.. (and, as always.. remember it has to be a CONVICTION..not just the filing of charges that counts)

I've denied many a CPL applicant for DV Assault 4° .. but have NEVER disqual'd someone convicted of just an Assault 4°

 

[slag_it!]

I read it as just an Assault 4 when I looked on the website. I did not know it had to be a specific type. It did not differentiate between the two. Good information to know, I will share this will people that have not applied because of not wanting to be denied. Thanks!

 

[ironmike86]

60 days till I got mine?? Wtf??? All because in 1986 a gross misdemeanor would be a felony today?? What is that?? After that withing 25yrs only a speeding ticket and a reckless driving. Thats what I was worried about not a 1986 misdemeanor ?? Well at least 60 days of getting letters from whoever I got it.
I'm local and she said she can't denies me. Shall State

 

[Alex220]

It looks like the agency you went through did a very detailed background.. which is good

 

[ironmike86]

Yea I agree it's good. But they wouldn't tell me why it was taking so long? When I went to ask they said they had to do more checking. First lady was mean. She scared me like she was gonna lock me up. But the Lady who actually signed my Cpl and gave it to me was nice. She just wanted to make sure with all the local police = Seattle ect..that I was eligible and that nobody could revoke it once I've received it?? Dunno what that means but once they give it to me 60days later it should be good?? I want it for hiking in the woods. Last time I went there was a Cougar running around. Not to mention there alot of meth head up there. I follow the law. I know ppl who carry in the woods without. And as far as I know concealed carry is the only legal way in MT Rainier and other parks???

 

[thumperscuz80]

the law ..

Link Removed

 

[RightsorPrivileges]

Hey everyone,
Sorry for butting in on this thread but my issue is similar to those that were posted. I plan on applying for my first CPL which I understand has to be done at the Edmonds PD. I was convicted of an Assault IV DV as a juvenile and have since had it vacated and my firearms rights restored. I was told I am legally able to tell employers etc. that I have never been convicted of anything but does this apply to the application for a CPL? I ran a check on myself through the WSP website and it came up clean.

It was also interesting to find out recently, several years after having the conviction vacated, that my situation was not DV at all according to RCW 26.50.010 and also does not fit the federal definition of DV. I'm thinking this means that since I have my state rights back that even if it did show up on a federal check that I would still have my federal rights even though the original charge said DV. Any thoughts on this?

 

[slag_it!]

I am not a lawyer but, it sounds as if you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Alex220]

Hey everyone,
Sorry for butting in on this thread but my issue is similar to those that were posted. I plan on applying for my first CPL which I understand has to be done at the Edmonds PD. I was convicted of an Assault IV DV as a juvenile and have since had it vacated and my firearms rights restored. I was told I am legally able to tell employers etc. that I have never been convicted of anything but does this apply to the application for a CPL? I ran a check on myself through the WSP website and it came up clean.

It was also interesting to find out recently, several years after having the conviction vacated, that my situation was not DV at all according to RCW 26.50.010 and also does not fit the federal definition of DV. I'm thinking this means that since I have my state rights back that even if it did show up on a federal check that I would still have my federal rights even though the original charge said DV. Any thoughts on this?

If you have the court order that specifically says that your firearm rights have been restored, then you should be ok.. The problem (and it is a common one) is when people have a conviction that is a prohibitor for CPL or firearm possession and they get the conviction vacated..and think that their firearm civil rights are AUTOMATICALLY restored.. then they come and apply and I have to deny their CPL..

Having a conviction vacated and having one's civil rights to posses firearms (and by extension having a CPL) are completely different animals.. you need to have the court order that spells out exactly that firearm rights have been restored.

chances are, that when they run the NCIC III, the Juvenile conviction probably wouldn't show (like you found when when you went through the WATCH program from WSP) and if that's the only issue on your background, then you should be just fine for your CPL.

 

[RightsorPrivileges]

Ah I see thank you very much guys. As a police officer what does a vacated case mean to you? Is it like it never happened or was overturned maybe? I was very specific speaking to my attorney about restoring my firearm rights and I definitely remember the added cost to do so. I guess I have a trip to take to the King County Clerk's office since it happened in Seattle.

I guess what I'm asking is if I answer the question regarding having ever been convicted of a misdemeanor assault IV DV with a NO, will I get myself in trouble? I know my attorney said I could legally say that but this is the government so I'm having problems with the legal language here.

I hate having to deal with a rediculous incident that happened when I was a kid especially since it was so minor but having a forum like this with people like you to talk to makes it that much less stressful so thanks again.

 

[Alex220]

A Juvenile record that has been sealed is as if it never happened.. and you can say NO to the conviction question. In fact, when we run backgrounds, we'll see only a reference to a sealed record that even we can't get into. (well..under some very certain circumstances..but that's rare)

Just be sure you have the court order that specifically restores your civil rights to possess firearms..usual wording when a case is vacated goes something like 'so and so is now free from any and all penalties resulting from this conviction..etc..etc..' and people THINK that that phrase/clause gives them their civil rights back for firearms.. it doesn't

the wording on the order has to be specific in regards to firearm rights.. and as you found, is usually an extra cost and set of hoops to jump through.

 

[RightsorPrivileges]

I went down to the King County Superior Court Clerk's Office today and tried to get anything in reference to firearm rights but they couldn't get into the case records. The person looking it up left and worked with his boss for about 15 minutes then came back and said they couldn't get any records or even come up with a case number. He also said he has never seen anything like it and my lawyer must have done a really good job. Apparently I might need a court order to access these records even though it was my case.

This leaves me thinking it might be worth a try to apply for a CPL without getting those records first. If it is denied I can always get appeal right? Would they go as far as to get a court order to see these charges when doing a background check?