Wa state CWP/CPL denied!!! , told to surender guns! - Page 6
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 82

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

  1. #51
    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!

  2.   
  3. #52
    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 :)

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

  5. #54
    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???


  6. #56
    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?

  7. #57
    I am not a lawyer but, it sounds as if you have nothing to worry about.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by RightsorPrivileges View Post
    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.

  9. #59
    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.

  10. 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.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can Canada disarm US Citizens Part 2
    By Right 2 Carry in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 07:14 PM
  2. Armed citizen stories
    By ishi in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 01:17 PM
  3. The Socialistic Nine
    By tattedupboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-02-2007, 04:48 PM
  4. 40 Reasons for Gun Control
    By rabywk in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-19-2007, 03:50 PM
  5. The Socialistic Nine
    By tattedupboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2007, 08:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast