Assault PJC and CHP

[JC_Biggs]

so a friend of mine asked me about it, and i looked up the law. he has a assualt charge from an recently failed marriage..he didnt hurt the girl AT ALL, but the technicality of the court system got him and he ended up with a PJC. from what ive read, he wont be able to get a CHP, or possibly even a permit to buy anymore weapons, but shouldnt the PJC be null after a few years???

and just out of curiosity, if you had an assault charge that you didnt get a pjc on, and got sentenced to something...probation, i guess... how long would that hinder you? forever?

 

[Dreamer]

here is an excellent article on PJC's, from the UNC Shcool of Government's website. It is a pretty dense read, but it has a LOT of good info:

http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?tag=pjc

 

[JC_Biggs]

man your like the king of informative post with correct information. lol hows that sc3 charter goin?

 

[Dreamer]

My Google-Fu is strong, grasshopper...

Our SCCC group is very enthusiastic and it looks like we will have some good events this semester. We've already got a table reserved for the Campus Activities Fair in April. We are having a "Range Day" this weekend and are expecting nearly a dozen people. And We've been working with GRNC and SCCC-State and National more too ("Exilin77" and I went to Raleigh today, in fact, to meet with some legislators about campus carry, and to support the "Restaurant Carry" bill).

We also have good relations with the Libertarian and Young Republican organizations here on campus, and are reaching out to other orgs as well. I've even spoken with a Sorority representative about helping them develop some sort of "personal safety training" for their members.

We are also planning to participate in the "Empty Holster Protest Week" in April, here on ECU's campus.

All in all, it looks like we have an enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and creative bunch of students here, and we're expecting good things from SCCC-ECU in the future!

 

[JC_Biggs]

cool deal.. i informed some of the staff at WCC that ECU now has a chapter, and that i would be pursuing it.. they werent really that pleased. lol. but i seem to have PLENTY of interest in membership.

anyways, from reading that about the PJC, if just means the judge has "continued" the case. could stay on your record forever, but from what i gather, it could also be expunged (as you have to have been found guilty first) OR you can go back and ask the courts to change it to voluntary dismissal. (after you have been good for a few years of course)

so it looks like its possible he might be ok, not now, but maybe in a while, and i still need to read more. so this could get edited. lol

 

[mekender]

Technically he was charged with a crime of domestic violence and per federal law he may be prohibited from owning guns. He needs to get a lawyer and find out.

 

[JC_Biggs]

Technically he was charged with a crime of domestic violence and per federal law he may be prohibited from owning guns. He needs to get a lawyer and find out.

have any statute for that? cuz ive never seen it

 

[JC_Biggs]

this is a quote from google

In the US, being convicted of a crime of Domestic Violence has the result of making it illegal to possess ANY firearm. This is covered in Title 18, US Code, Section 922, and applies to all US states.




i would argue that, a PJC is, regardless of a guilty verdict, a waiver of your crime. in other words the court has stated "we arent going to punish you for this" and in my opinion that would extend to protecting your rights. if your mom didnt spank you after you broke the window, then your ass isnt sore and you can still sit down right? lol..(sorry, first metaphor i could think of) . we need more lawyers on this site. lol


and you know, how is a DV situation got all these stipulations and sh!t behind it, and we all know a simple he said she said can get you a charge if your married to a crazy b... but anyways, someone gets and assualt charge for a bar fight and that doesnt affect the rights at all...at least according to federal law. i think in my state ALL assualt charges are covered but why single out DV in the federal law????? ...

 

[mekender]

this is a quote from google

In the US, being convicted of a crime of Domestic Violence has the result of making it illegal to possess ANY firearm. This is covered in Title 18, US Code, Section 922, and applies to all US states.




i would argue that, a PJC is, regardless of a guilty verdict, a waiver of your crime. in other words the court has stated "we arent going to punish you for this" and in my opinion that would extend to protecting your rights. if your mom didnt spank you after you broke the window, then your ass isnt sore and you can still sit down right? lol..(sorry, first metaphor i could think of) . we need more lawyers on this site. lol


and you know, how is a DV situation got all these stipulations and sh!t behind it, and we all know a simple he said she said can get you a charge if your married to a crazy b... but anyways, someone gets and assualt charge for a bar fight and that doesnt affect the rights at all...at least according to federal law. i think in my state ALL assualt charges are covered but why single out DV in the federal law????? ...

That also may depend on how the feds interpret the case and the charge... I know that I have read about people that were convicted of "simple assault" decades ago and then suddenly they were notified that because it was against a family member it was still DV for the purposes of federal law and they were a prohibited person.

Per 18 USC 921:

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/921.html

(33)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term
"misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" means an offense that -

(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and

(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical
force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a
current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a
person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person
who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a
spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to
a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
(B)(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of
such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless -

(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or
knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the
case; and

(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in
this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in
the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either

(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or

(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right

to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of
such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has
been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person
has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of
the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights
under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or
restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may
not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

So if a PJC means that the conviction has been "set aside" then he should be in the clear... But I would still recommend that a lawyer get involved to know for sure.

 

[cricketdad]

My Google-Fu is strong, grasshopper...

Our SCCC group is very enthusiastic and it looks like we will have some good events this semester. We've already got a table reserved for the Campus Activities Fair in April. We are having a "Range Day" this weekend and are expecting nearly a dozen people. And We've been working with GRNC and SCCC-State and National more too ("Exilin77" and I went to Raleigh today, in fact, to meet with some legislators about campus carry, and to support the "Restaurant Carry" bill).

We also have good relations with the Libertarian and Young Republican organizations here on campus, and are reaching out to other orgs as well. I've even spoken with a Sorority representative about helping them develop some sort of "personal safety training" for their members.

We are also planning to participate in the "Empty Holster Protest Week" in April, here on ECU's campus.

All in all, it looks like we have an enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and creative bunch of students here, and we're expecting good things from SCCC-ECU in the future!

How many members do you have?

 

[JC_Biggs]

That also may depend on how the feds interpret the case and the charge... I know that I have read about people that were convicted of "simple assault" decades ago and then suddenly they were notified that because it was against a family member it was still DV for the purposes of federal law and they were a prohibited person.

Per 18 USC 921:

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/921.html



So if a PJC means that the conviction has been "set aside" then he should be in the clear... But I would still recommend that a lawyer get involved to know for sure.

im trying to get that clarified right now. i dont want my buddy goin to jail over this crap...amazing what kinda problems a hateful woman can cause ya...dam...

 

[hotrod08]

Disqualifying Factors for a CHP

An Individual who has been adjudicated guilty of or received PJC or suspended sentence for offenses constituting a misdemeanor under Article 8 of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes is Disqualified from obtaining a Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun.


http://tinyurl.com/Article-8-Chapter-14-NCGS

source: http://www.co.forsyth.nc.us/sheriff/documents/CCW_denial_offenses.pdf

 

[Spearhead]

If it was just an assault he can't get a CHP but he can get a PPP in NC. (State law)
If it was domestic violence he can't get either one. (state and fed law)

If it was just an assault he can get a non-res VA or FLA CHP if it has been over 5 years since the conviction. Both of those are currently valid in NC. The New Hamp. non-res is no longer valid.

 

[JC_Biggs]

these laws targeting specifially domestic violence are assinine. what makes DVA worse than any other assault?? ....

 

[WTFOVER]

these laws targeting specifially domestic violence are assinine. what makes DVA worse than any other assault?? ....

Most of the time its a guy beating a female thats why its worse.

 

[aadvark]

The Analysis of Federal Law is Correct in that The Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence is The ONLY Federal Misdemeanor Crime which Results in a Prohibition of Firearm Rights.

What is Sad is that This Crime was Sold to the American Public, at The Time of its Inception by The One and The Only Crooked Senater Lautenburg, as a 'Wife-Beator' Crime.

However, This Crime has, in many States, Evolved into something more.

Now..., in The Vast Majority of States, This Crime and Collateral Consequence, is Triggered by ANY Act that Involves any Violence against ANYONE who is Family, or who has even Lived in The same Household, EVEN if such Person is NOT Related either by Blood or Marriage.

This is a SNEAK ATTACK against American Gun Owners.

Henceforth, ATTACK your Neighbors, NO Prohibition as against Your Gun Rights, EVEN if Convicted.

BUT.., ATTACK that RoomMate from College, Remeber?..., The Guy from 20+ years Ago?, then, BAM! NO GUN RIGHTS for You.

To Add insult to Injury, many States now have Adapted SHALL ARREST Policies and Laws Governing Domestic Violence Cases, in these States, ANY 911 Dispatch Indicating Domestic Violence, SHALL Result in an Arrest.

A List of these States is Veiwable here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/...rest_Policies_by_State_11_07.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[Spearhead]

The Analysis of Federal Law is Correct in that The Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence is The ONLY Federal Misdemeanor Crime which Results in a Prohibition of Firearm Rights.

What is Sad is that This Crime was Sold to the American Public, at The Time of its Inception by The One and The Only Crooked Senater Lautenburg, as a 'Wife-Beator' Crime.

However, This Crime has, in many States, Evolved into something more.

Now..., in The Vast Majority of States, This Crime and Collateral Consequence, is Triggered by ANY Act that Involves any Violence against ANYONE who is Family, or who has even Lived in The same Household, EVEN if such Person is NOT Related either by Blood or Marriage.

This is a SNEAK ATTACK against American Gun Owners.

Henceforth, ATTACK your Neighbors, NO Prohibition as against Your Gun Rights, EVEN if Convicted.

BUT.., ATTACK that RoomMate from College, Remeber?..., The Guy from 20+ years Ago?, then, BAM! NO GUN RIGHTS for You.

To Add insult to Injury, many States now have Adapted SHALL ARREST Policies and Laws Governing Domestic Violence Cases, in these States, ANY 911 Dispatch Indicating Domestic Violence, SHALL Result in an Arrest.

A List of these States is Veiwable here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/...rest_Policies_by_State_11_07.authcheckdam.pdf

Whats even more "sneak attack" is the whole misdemeanor assault thing. Technically if I spit on someone it is an assault. If I'm in an argument and simply shove someone, it's an assault, regardless of the fact that no one actually got hurt.

There was a case here in Wayne County about three years ago regarding a deputy who arrested a motorist for "assault" because they pulled up to a stop light and the guy was eating chicken and threw the chicken bone out the drivers side window and it went inside the deputys passenger window and landed in his lap.
The deputy arrested the motorist for "assaulting him with a chicken bone". I won't reveal the deputy's name, but the whole thing was nothing more than the deputy's pride was hurt.

Now the motorist is ineligible to get a CHP in NC because he threw a chicken bone onto a deputy. Sure, it might have been disrespectful because he probably did it on purpose, but really, assault? Crap such as that really hurts the people or deputies who really genuinely get assaulted.

 

[Spearhead]

these laws targeting specifially domestic violence are assinine. what makes DVA worse than any other assault?? ....

It's a Federal thing. States get funds to fight domestic violence, so the more "domestic violence" a state has, the more federal funds the state is eligible for. This started in the mid 90's when there was a big push to protect spouses. I worked for Harris County District Court at the time. The DA's all were pushing for anything that could be stretched into a DV charge to be. When the feds realized a lot of people are simply "shacked up" and not married, and the "spousal" thing technically wouldn't hold up in court, then it was modified to cover anyone in the household, regardless of marital status or sex. Even if it is two guys in a civil union it can be domestic violence.

So to answer your question what makes it worse? Nothing except the money.

 

[JC_Biggs]

im still confused though... the charge was assault on a female. it doesnt say anything about domestic violence anywhere. sooooo how do you know if its assault on some female in the middle of the road, or a domestic violence situation. if it isnt defined as domestic violence on the record then federal law wont apply.. regardless of all this, the charge will probably go away with time and a good lawyer to simply a voluntary dismissal, at which point it is easily expunged... just trying to understand the law. #1, in my mind DV or not, assault is assault, therefore should be treated evenly across the board. #2, these females should REALLY not be able to do that sh!t.. my friend could of easily had her charged at the same time, but at no point was he ever given a chance to, cuz she called first. its ridiculous...

 

[mekender]

im still confused though... the charge was assault on a female. it doesnt say anything about domestic violence anywhere. sooooo how do you know if its assault on some female in the middle of the road, or a domestic violence situation. if it isnt defined as domestic violence on the record then federal law wont apply.. regardless of all this, the charge will probably go away with time and a good lawyer to simply a voluntary dismissal, at which point it is easily expunged... just trying to understand the law. #1, in my mind DV or not, assault is assault, therefore should be treated evenly across the board. #2, these females should REALLY not be able to do that sh!t.. my friend could of easily had her charged at the same time, but at no point was he ever given a chance to, cuz she called first. its ridiculous...

First you said it was due to a failed marriage, sounds like DV to me... Secondly even if it was not charged as DV, federal courts have interpreted even simple assault as a qualifying crime for the purposes of the Lautenberg amendment prohibitions because that simple assault was against someone that lived in the household.