Reported History Question

[Keith B]

He does not have to disclose it, and if a record is found he has a cause of action. DPS would not be able to deny the license.

I disagree.

GC §411.174. APPLICATION. (a) An applicant for a license to carry a
concealed handgun must submit to the director's designee described by
Section 411.176:
(9) a form executed by the applicant that authorizes the director to
make an inquiry into any noncriminal history records that are necessary to
determine the applicant's eligibility for a license under Section 411.172(a).
(b) An applicant must provide on the application a statement of the
applicant's:
(1) full name and place and date of birth;
(2) race and sex;
(3) residence and business addresses for the preceding five years;
(4) hair and eye color;
(5) height and weight;
(6) driver's license number or identification certificate number issued
by the department;
(7) criminal history record information of the type maintained by the
department under this chapter, including a list of offenses for which the
applicant was arrested, charged, or under an information or indictment
and the disposition of the offenses;

It does not state convicted, but was arrested. Even if charges are dropped or the issue is expunged you must list the arrest and provide a disposition.

[jbarn]

An arrest subject to an expunction never happened. He can lawfully state he was never arrested. Read the Expunction statutes in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

DPS cannot deny him for not disclosing it.

[Keith B]

An arrest subject to an expunction never happened. He can lawfully state he was never arrested. Read the Expunction statutes in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

DPS cannot deny him for not disclosing it.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. My view is that it does not hurt to disclose it as if it has been expunged it will not be a cause for denial anyway.

[aerostat]

I know I'm new here so I'm probably missing all the history behind this argument but I don't understand why somebody would work so hard to avoid disclosing something that won't disqualify them.

[airbornecpa]

And if you don't have anything to hide, then why not let the police search?
If you didn't do anything wrong, then why not answer whatever the police may ask you?
I mean, good grief, you don't have anything to hide, what possible harm could come

The answer is always NO if you are asked to consent to a search.
The answer is always that you will NOT answer questions without your lawyer present.

You are an AMERICAN , do NOT give up your rights.

Think about what Davy Crocket is quoted as saying ""I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not, they might go to hell, and I would go to Texas."

AATW

[Oldgringo]

And if you don't have anything to hide, then why not let the police search?
If you didn't do anything wrong, then why not answer whatever the police may ask you?
I mean, good grief, you don't have anything to hide, what possible harm could come

The answer is always NO if you are asked to consent to a search.
The answer is always that you will NOT answer questions without your lawyer present.

You are an AMERICAN , do NOT give up your rights.

Think about what Davy Crocket is quoted as saying ""I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not, they might go to heck, and I would go to Texas."

AATW

ATW

[CHLLady]

And if you don't have anything to hide, then why not let the police search?
If you didn't do anything wrong, then why not answer whatever the police may ask you?
I mean, good grief, you don't have anything to hide, what possible harm could come

The answer is always NO if you are asked to consent to a search.
The answer is always that you will NOT answer questions without your lawyer present.

You are an AMERICAN , do NOT give up your rights.

Think about what Davy Crocket is quoted as saying ""I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not, they might go to heck, and I would go to Texas."

AATW

I bought that Davy Crockett magnet with that quote for my fridge. I sent the post card to my friend in England. Lol!

I am always on base, just entering means I consent to search. I've been consenting to vehicle searches for years, my instinct is to say yes. -- What if they cuff me and take me downtown cuz I said no?

[Paul's Shield]

These have all been great responses to a question I had. From my understanding and reading some things about the laws of expungment, it appears I do not have to disclose. In my particular case 14 years ago, I was never convicted. Only indicted while an investigation was on going. A witness exnorated me and my case was dismissed. I found myself having to hire an attorney to clear (expunge) my record, b/c I am a licensed insurance agent in Texas and actually have to go thru very much the same background check as a CHL holder. You can have no misdemeanors, felonies and so on to even qualify for the license. I've had my licenses for going on 10 years now. While I feel that I shouldn't have to disclose an arrest that was actually a wrongful arrest I really hate delays and losing my application fee should it come to that.

Additionally I called the local city record office were the arrest started and also contacted the county in which it was processed and requested a certified letter of a criminal records search and "0" results were found in my name.

on a side note. I've been trying to get in touch with a representative from the CHL office in regards to this question but this has proved being more difficult than the question I've asked here.

Would anyone happen to have a good number I can call for questions?

[cb1000rider]

I know I'm new here so I'm probably missing all the history behind this argument but I don't understand why somebody would work so hard to avoid disclosing something that won't disqualify them.

If you're disqualified, are they required to tell you why?

I'd work really hard to hide it also.. Until properly expunged - meaning from every record - it's going to show up on background checks for basic employment applications. Even it it shows "not guilty", it's going to bias employers and hurt his chances in the job market. It's not fair and it shouldn't be that way, but there it is.

I don't have enough faith in our government to believe that the guy/gal that pushes the Y/N button will see "not guilty" and necessarily do the right thing versus finding some other loophole.

As a non-attorney, I would assume that the disclosure question as it relates to state forms and expungement is fairly standard. I'd follow the advice of the attorney.

[Paul's Shield]

It's been so long since I've have to deal with this I went back to my paperwork and in one word or another on the expungement it basically is a court order to destroy all records with my name on it all the way to the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

[Tic Tac]

If you believe every record was destroyed "all the way to the Federal Bureau of Investigations" then you can choose not to disclose it. Just be aware of the risk if the investigators do find something.

That's all I have to say other than good luck.

[Tic Tac]

If you're disqualified, are they required to tell you why?

Only if you apply. TX GC 411.180