Page 5 of 6
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:00 pm
by sjfcontrol
Obviously, they're being rejected because they dont meet the requirements!
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:09 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Big Tuna wrote:XinTX wrote:Barbi Q wrote:DPS can do the required background check without fingerprints, but the law requires applicants to send fingerprints. They could (circular) file the fingerprints, and do the background check sans prints, using NCIC, TCIC, and NICS. That would satisfy the required background check and create no new barriers to CHL applicants. Instead, they chose to put a bigger burden on applicants by requiring the prints be done by ONE company.
I wonder who owns the company and who they're related to.
Exactly. They could 'accept' anything resembling 'fingerprints' and promptly (circular) file them. No pass/fail criteria other than someone could plausibly say they were 'fingerprints'. Then do the BG checks and be done with it. Save the DPS time and budget with all the fingerprint handling and processing.
Follow the money.
Requiring fingerprints costs the State $23.50 for each CHL. There's no money motive here; the statute requires it and it needs to be repealed.
Chas.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:21 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Bullwhip wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:XinTX wrote:But the biggest thing is if the prints aren't needed, why collect them in the first place?
Fingerprints are required by the Government Code. That's why I want to change it in 2013.
Chas.
Still time left to file a bill for 2011, right?
There's time technically, but not in practical terms. With the budget and redistricting, there's very little time to get things done. By filing parking lots, campus-carry, and range protection, we've already put a lot into play this session.
Bullwhip wrote:Even if we can't pass a bill the DPS administrative rule process could stop requiring l1, since that's how they started requiring them in the first place. Law requires applicants to send in prints, nothing requires DPS to send them to FBI or use them at all, just conduct the BG check.
I don't know where you heard that, but sorry it wrong.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b) specifically requires that the fingerprints be sent to the FBI. "
The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant." DPS had nothing to do with requiring fingerprints or sending them to the FBI.
Chas.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:52 am
by KD5NRH
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Requiring fingerprints costs the State $23.50 for each CHL. There's no money motive here; the statute requires it and it needs to be repealed.
So, if they dropped that requirement, they could reduce the fee by $20, and still make $3.50 more than they currently are. Could be an angle to work.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:25 am
by Charles L. Cotton
KD5NRH wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Requiring fingerprints costs the State $23.50 for each CHL. There's no money motive here; the statute requires it and it needs to be repealed.
So, if they dropped that requirement, they could reduce the fee by $20, and still make $3.50 more than they currently are. Could be an angle to work.
DPS can't stop sending prints to the FBI until/unless we repeal that requirement.
Chas.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:16 am
by Griz44
It is a matter of perspective. It is not unusual at all for large companies or governmental institutions to use a sole source vendor. This makes employee training and stock availability uniform and less expensive. The key here is not to "follow the money" but the key here is to remove the requirement. L1 does a decent job, the only drawback I see is the location availability. If an individual is willing to spend 10-12 hours in class, it seems a drive - even a longer one for some folks, should not be an insurmountable obstacle once in the lifetime of a license. How many hours did that person have to spend at work to earn the money for the license? Class cost plus license cost probably stacks up to as many hours at work to earn the money as will be spent in class. A lot of debate is put into the relatively small amount of time required to get a fingerprint job done, when I do not hear the same objection to the time spent earning the money for the process, traveling to ranges or sitting in class discussed. For most, that investment will be somewhere around 25-30 hours. Why is another hour or two (max) going to matter that much? There are very few places in the State of Texas that would be out of range of an L1 of more than an hour or so of driving time. Renewals do not require new prints if you have an electronic set on file, so theoretically, one time is good for a lifetime.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:57 am
by XinTX
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know where you heard that, but sorry it wrong.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b) specifically requires that the fingerprints be sent to the FBI. "
The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant." DPS had nothing to do with requiring fingerprints or sending them to the FBI.
Chas.
So DPS HAS TO send the prints, but it doesn't say the FBI has to find them acceptable. If the check can be done with 'unacceptable' (to the FBI) prints, couldn't the DPS keep sending the rolled print cards (and the FBI could reject them, but so what if they can still do the criminal history check?). Unless there's another section that states the prints must be acceptable to the FBI. Seems like this could be done via an administrative 'determination' (barring any other sections of the code).
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:51 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
XinTX wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know where you heard that, but sorry it wrong.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b) specifically requires that the fingerprints be sent to the FBI. "
The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant." DPS had nothing to do with requiring fingerprints or sending them to the FBI.
Chas.
So DPS HAS TO send the prints, but it doesn't say the FBI has to find them acceptable. If the check can be done with 'unacceptable' (to the FBI) prints, couldn't the DPS keep sending the rolled print cards (and the FBI could reject them, but so what if they can still do the criminal history check?). Unless there's another section that states the prints must be acceptable to the FBI. Seems like this could be done via an administrative 'determination' (barring any other sections of the code).
Of course the FBI must accept the fingerprints in order for DPS to meet the requirements of the statute. That's not only implicit in the Code requirement, it's clear from the language you quoted. §411.176(b) expressly states the prints are to be sent to the FBI "
. . . for a national criminal history check of the applicant." If the FBI rejects a set of prints, it wouldn't be doing "a national criminal history check of the applicant." The fact that the background check can now be performed by DPS doesn't change the requirements of the Code. It does make this provision outdated and it should be repealed, but DPS doesn't have the option of simply ignoring it.
Chas.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:45 pm
by XinTX
So NOW it finally gets through my rather thick noggin. IOW, today DPS can do the check without going through the FBI. And DPS doesn't need prints to do that. But FBI wants prints acceptable per their standards do do the check. So the law would need to be changed to eliminate the requirement that the FBI do the checks (as it currently stands).
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:35 am
by Vecco
smiller1939 wrote:In my humble opinion, the Concealed Handgun Licensing Unit of the Texas Department of Public Safety is, in effect, killing the Texas CHL law by requiring all new applicant fingerprints be obtained from only one source: L1 Solutions. First this seems to me to be a major conflict between a private business and a governmental agency, particularly with the governmental agency promoting the private business on their web site and then secondly, by forcing the public to obtain their fingerprints from the only game in the state. To me at least, this appears to be a major impropriety. Now how is this killing the handgun law? If a new applicant lives in a major city the most they may have to travel to obtain the fingerprints is across the city, which in the case of Dallas, Houston, Austin and even San Antonio, may be a major drive, but the folks who live in smaller cities throughout Texas will need to travel to a major city to get their prints taken at one of the locations of L1 Solutions, which are very few and far between, and then probably will need to again return to the closest city where a class is held. With the law changing to allow Texas citizens the right to carry a weapon in their car without a license, what incentive is present to drive all over the city/state to obtain the fingerprints (from the only game in town) and then drive all over the city/state to take the class. There is none as DPS has done away with one stop shopping thereby making the obtaining of a concealed handgun license a more complex, costly and time consuming event. I’m not sure this is what Jerry Patterson and Suzanna Hupp had in mind.
Sorry, this probably should have been posted to General Texas CHL Discussion
I agree DPS requires you to use L1 by refusing almost all others. I did get mine done for free on Randolf Militay base.. and they knew what DPS hit on and it went thew the first time... but they almost force you to use L1 for finger prints
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:44 am
by sjfcontrol
As of today, it's no longer "almost". L-1 is required by DPS.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:55 am
by Vecco
sjfcontrol wrote:As of today, it's no longer "almost". L-1 is required by DPS.
Wow I hope they make it more user frindly. I tried L1 but all the locations on the " List" were no longer doing it// My only option was to go to Austin, that was 3 years ago.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:13 am
by sjfcontrol
Vecco wrote:sjfcontrol wrote:As of today, it's no longer "almost". L-1 is required by DPS.
Wow I hope they make it more user frindly. I tried L1 but all the locations on the " List" were no longer doing it// My only option was to go to Austin, that was 3 years ago.
Not sure what you mean by "it", but all L-1 locations are doing CHL prints now -- or at least they are all
supposed to be doing them.
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:19 am
by Vecco
sjfcontrol wrote:Vecco wrote:sjfcontrol wrote:As of today, it's no longer "almost". L-1 is required by DPS.
Wow I hope they make it more user frindly. I tried L1 but all the locations on the " List" were no longer doing it// My only option was to go to Austin, that was 3 years ago.
Not sure what you mean by "it", but all L-1 locations are doing CHL prints now -- or at least they are all
supposed to be doing them.
IT = L1 locations and time open
Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:18 am
by Bullwhip
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Bullwhip wrote:Even if we can't pass a bill the DPS administrative rule process could stop requiring l1, since that's how they started requiring them in the first place. Law requires applicants to send in prints, nothing requires DPS to send them to FBI or use them at all, just conduct the BG check.
I don't know where you heard that, but sorry it wrong.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b) specifically requires that the fingerprints be sent to the FBI. "
The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant." DPS had nothing to do with requiring fingerprints or sending them to the FBI.
Chas.
Thanks for setting me straight!
I didn't read the GC, I thought I read that in some earlier posts in the thread. I guess I assumed wrong.