class d felony: will it stop an LTCH?

[TJSieling]

Sitting at work on break and my buddy Justin heard I was getting my LTCH. He told m. He was thinking of getting one but he has a problem.

He has a class D felony for theft from when he was 18 (12 years ago) and was wondering if that would affect his application when they run his background check. His friend broke the window and took the bag, he was just the driver.

Can any LEO's help me out or any other people give me an insight?

This seemed like the appropriate place to post, if I'm wrong I apologize.

 

[Hiram2005]

I have a friend who did the same type thing when he was young also. He has never been able to get a LTCH. He has tried every newly elected governor to try to get his record set aside, pardoned or what ever it is called to no avail.

 

[eldirector]

There is a process to get his record cleaned, but no guarantees. ANY felony will stop the LTCH process.

I can't remember the correct terminology, or I'd do a search on here for you. Maybe someone can help with a link?

 

[Vasili]

Better question - do you REALLY want the guy having license to be ARMED?

How about you let this one go, bud.

 

[Hiram2005]

Better question - do you REALLY want the guy having license to be ARMED?

How about you let this one go, bud.

I don't know about this. My friend did his "deed" when he was 17. He's now in his 50's, a successful business man and has been in no trouble since. He has had the Chief of police and the county sheriff (several different ones over the years) testify on his behalf and still no go.
He has just given up on it. Oh and yes, I would not be bothered by my friend being able to be armed. I know and trust him.

 

[jason867]

My dad was in the same situation as your friend. He was convicted of possesion of stolen property when he was a teen or something (his friend had him hold on to it, lol). I forget what class of felony he said it was, but as far as he knew it was never taken off the record. He wasn't sure if he'd get his LTCH or not, but the lady at the police department recommended he try cause she wasn't sure. 3 months later he got his license, so I don't know if it just didn't show up in their investigation or what.

 

[Vasili]

I don't know about this. My friend did his "deed" when he was 17. He's now in his 50's, a successful business man and has been in no trouble since. He has had the Chief of police and the county sheriff (several different ones over the years) testify on his behalf and still no go.
He has just given up on it. Oh and yes, I would not be bothered by my friend being able to be armed. I know and trust him.

Did he not realize that it was wrong to be the hold-up driver?

Really?

If you want him to get it, lobby to have them change the laws.

As it stands the only way would be expungement and even that depends on alot of things.

 

[loony1]

have him contact a "gun friendly" attorney in your area, i'm sure he will get all the answers he wants.

 

[TJSieling]

I understand was you're saying vasili but I do trust this guy. Never had any prior or post arrests, everyone was young and dumb at some point.

He knows about expungement but he is just as broke as I am. Ill tell him to try nd that its a 50-50. You would think they would excuse something after so many years...

writing a letter to the senator or someone else would be a Bit of a last resort. But as far as trust goes, would you trust me with a firearm? Sometimes its a matter of good faith and I would trust any of you guys because I have no reason not to.

 

[TJSieling]

Sorry about the second post, my phone sucks.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Apart from Mitch expunging his felony, his only other options for carry are to decide to either be very sneaky or to be the test case for "shall not be infringed"...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Short answer: yes, it would disqualify him under both state and federal law. Under federal law he may not possess firearms or ammunition, not even in his home.

There are several routes to overturning the conviction:

1. Pardon from Mitch Daniels (I've done them but they are very time consuming).
2. Appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals or Supreme Court (not going to happen after twelve years).
3. Post Conviction Relief Petition (a quasi civil lawsuit for violation of defendant's civil rights, often ineffective assistance of counsel).
4. Sentence modification (a Class D felony may be entered as a Class A misdemeanor, requalifying [potentially] a person for firearms ownership)

If your buddy is serious, it is within his best interest to contact an attorney.

 

[noname1]

He may seem like a good guy now, but I think there is something wrong with his character that would allow him to be involved in a felony. I don't see a problem with him living with the consequences of his decision after due process has taken place. Proper citizen does not include convicted felons.

 

[TJSieling]

He may seem like a good guy now, but I think there is something wrong with his character that would allow him to be involved in a felony. I don't see a problem with him living with the consequences of his decision after due process has taken place. Proper citizen does not include convicted felons.

so if we were to go back to when you were 18 you could meet me in person, look me in the eye, and tell me you've never even thought about stealing something?

 

[noname1]

so if we were to go back to when you were 18 you could meet me in person, look me in the eye, and tell me you've never even thought about stealing something?

Absolutely. I thought that most people were that way. Perhaps I'm wrong. I suppose people can change too, but if we make that distinction, where do you draw the line? I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that a convicted felon can never carry legally.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Proper citizen does not include convicted felons.

Someone's interpretation of "proper citizen" -vs- "shall not be infringed"... I think I'm going to go with the latter here.

If someone isn't trustworthy enough for gun ownership, they should still be in prison.

 

[downzero]

He may seem like a good guy now, but I think there is something wrong with his character that would allow him to be involved in a felony. I don't see a problem with him living with the consequences of his decision after due process has taken place. Proper citizen does not include convicted felons.

I think there's something wrong with many people's conception of what a "felony" entails.

At common law, the list of felonies was short and the words are all household names: murder, burglary, rape, forgery, etc.

Since this country was founded and inherited the common law, we have written statutes making all sorts of things into felonies that never were before. The general tendency for government to "tighten the screws" on criminals in order to appease the masses about crime has finally gone way too far. People have felony convictions for stealing $250. Some people have done nothing violent to anyone, and even done no jail time at all, but still have felony records that affect their future ability to get a job, vote (in some states), and, of course, defend themselves with a firearm if necessary.

A friend of mine, who is now about 35, was arrested when he was 19 years old for stealing a car stereo. Instead of being charged with petty theft, some prosecutor, who thought he'd become a career criminal, charged him with "grand larceny." He spent six months in jail, did his time, and got out.

I met him about 10 years later. He had two little girls and a little boy on the way. He found it very difficult to find a job--any job--because of his felony conviction. He ended up working at a scrap yard cutting big hunks of steel into smaller hunks so it could be recycled. He had to work for cash in a job with mostly illegal immigrants because no legitimate entity would hire him.

Finally, after a while doing that, he got a job selling auto parts. And he's since had his conviction expunged, got a better job, owns a home, and is as productive a member of society as anyone else.

Let me tell you, when you have a friend who cannot feed his family because he has been demonized by the criminal courts, you really ask yourself: if this man is a threat to society, why isn't he in prison? And if he isn't, why doesn't the government leave this man alone?

And, of course, taking the vote from felons assures that they will not be able to have any serious voice in elections. Fortunately, felons can vote in Illinois. But I suspect they can't in Indiana.

 

[rmabrey]

IC 35-47-2-3
(g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license
has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a
delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was
committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a
court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense
charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be
issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the
charges for the specific offense are dismissed.

 

[noname1]

Sad stories about the poor criminals having a hard time getting by after getting convicted. Do you have any stories about how long the person that had their vehicle or home broken into felt violated? I tend to worry more about the victims than the people that knowingly and willingly broke the law, victimized someone, got caught and has to live with the consequences. Being 18 or 19 is just an excuse. If somone doesn't know right from wrong at 18 they probably are of weak moral fiber. More often than not it is a good idea to keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons. Would you trust a pedophile to babysit for your kids regardless of how long it has been since his prison term or how young he was when he thought it was acceptable to do his illegal acts?

 

[downzero]

Sad stories about the poor criminals having a hard time getting by after getting convicted. Do you have any stories about how long the person that had their vehicle or home broken into felt violated? I tend to worry more about the victims than the people that knowingly and willingly broke the law, victimized someone, got caught and has to live with the consequences. Being 18 or 19 is just an excuse. If somone doesn't know right from wrong at 18 they probably are of weak moral fiber. More often than not it is a good idea to keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons.

Ahh, I get it. His little girls should starve while the "victims" get an insurance company to pay for the stolen stuff anyway. And we should lock him up not to deter others from committing crime, but for as long as the victims "feel" violated.

"More often than not it is a good idea to keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons."

This is far far from well-established. Non-violent felons do not present any more of a threat to society than you or I do. And once they are free from prison, they should enjoy all the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including the right to self defense.

People who cannot be trusted with freedom belong in prison and nowhere else. Once they are free, they should be just that--FREE.

Would you trust a pedophile to babysit for your kids regardless of how long it has been since his prison term or how young he was when he thought it was acceptable to do his illegal acts?

I don't have kids, but if I did--no. But "trusting" someone to watch my kids is an employment and contractual relationship in which I have a choice whether to enter or not. Respecting my fellow man's freedom is a requirement for living in a free society. Learn the difference.