TexasCHLforum.com

I'm in the line of folks stuck behind the Hurricane IKE excuse, and I'm wondering just what the law says about these background checks. I contacted DPS at ninety days, and it seemed to me that they've put my application in a blanket category of hurricane IKE delayed. I got the impression that the application is just absolutely dead in the water with no expectation of progress indefinitely. Their take on it is that 411.177 allows them to just put an excuse in a letter and send it out to me, and then to drop processing the application altogether indefinitely up to 180 days, when it becomes an implicit denial.

What 411.176 says to me is that the background check can't take longer than 60 days. After the background check, the last sentence in 176 gives them additional time for "issues" that may still exist. It's those issues that are addressed in 411.177b(3) that they can send the letter and delay up to 180 days on. To me it says 30 days to get started, 60 days for the background check, and another 90 days to sort out "other issues," what ever that could be. Whatever the "other issues" might be, they can't be the background check.

If they can arbitrarily delay the background check beyond the 90 days, what stops them from delaying indefinitely up to and beyond 180 days? I mean this law governs the DPS. It doesn't govern Harris county. It doesn't compel Harris county to complete the background check in 60 days, it compels the DPS to not wait more than 60 days. From their point of view, they can delay, up to an implicit denial of all CHL applications in Harris county or across the whole state. What if Harris county delays so long, gets so far behind, that by the time they get to my BC, the 180 day implicit denial has already elapsed? How do you guys read 411.176 where it says the background check shall not exceed 60 days as compared to what is says in 411.177?

Sec. 411.176. REVIEW OF APPLICATION MATERIALS. (a) On receipt of the application materials by the department at its Austin headquarters, the department shall conduct the appropriate criminal history record check of the applicant through its computerized criminal history system. Not later than the 30th day after the date the department receives the application materials, the department shall forward the materials to the director's designee in the geographical area of the applicant's residence so that the designee may conduct the investigation described by Subsection (b).
(b) The director's designee as needed shall conduct an additional criminal history record check of the applicant and an investigation of the applicant's local official records to verify the accuracy of the application materials. The scope of the record check and the investigation are at the sole discretion of the department, except that the director's designee shall complete the record check and investigation not later than the 60th day after the date the department receives the application materials. The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant. On completion of the investigation, the director's designee shall return all materials and the result of the investigation to the appropriate division of the department at its Austin headquarters. The director's designee may submit to the appropriate division of the department, at the department's Austin headquarters, along with the application materials a written recommendation for disapproval of the application, accompanied by an affidavit stating personal knowledge or naming persons with personal knowledge of a ground for denial under Section 411.172. The director's designee in the appropriate geographical area may also submit the application and the recommendation that the license be issued. On receipt at the department's Austin headquarters of the application materials and the result of the investigation by the director's designee, the department shall conduct any further record check or investigation the department determines is necessary if a question exists with respect to the accuracy of the application materials or the eligibility of the applicant, except that the department shall complete the record check and investigation not later than the 180th day after the date the department receives the application materials from the applicant.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.07(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


Sec. 411.177. ISSUANCE OR DENIAL OF LICENSE. (a) The department shall issue a license to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant if the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials. The department may issue a license to carry handguns only of the categories indicated on the applicant's certificate of proficiency issued under Section 411.189. The department shall administer the licensing procedures in good faith so that any applicant who meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials shall receive a license. The department may not deny an application on the basis of a capricious or arbitrary decision by the department.
(b) The department shall, not later than the 60th day after the date of the receipt by the director's designee of the completed application materials:
(1) issue the license;
(2) notify the applicant in writing that the application was denied:
(A) on the grounds that the applicant failed to qualify under the criteria listed in Section 411.172;
(B) based on the affidavit of the director's designee submitted to the department under Section 411.176(b); or
(C) based on the affidavit of the qualified handgun instructor submitted to the department under Section 411.189(c); or
(3) notify the applicant in writing that the department is unable to make a determination regarding the issuance or denial of a license to the applicant within the 60-day period prescribed by this subsection and include in that notification an explanation of the reason for the inability and an estimation of the amount of time the department will need to make the determination.
(c) Failure of the department to issue or deny a license for a period of more than 30 days after the department is required to act under Subsection (b) constitutes denial.
(d) A license issued under this subchapter is effective from the date of issuance.

[soapbox mode]The requirements to issue/deny within a specific time don't mean squat.

Notice, the law establishes requirements . . . but there are no penalties when DPS fails to do so! I guess they're taking a cue from the Feds who quit observing the Constitution a long time ago. [/soapbox mode]

Suggest you write a polite letter to your state congressman or senator requesting assistance, and that they encourage DPS to follow the law - that appears to have worked for some people.

My wife got her Ike delay letter at day 160, and it is now day 205. We've written our senator (Jackson), representative (Taylor), the governor, and the Lt. Governor. The really sad thing is that we sent ours off at the same time, and I got my plastic over a month and a half before Ike. I've really thought about writing again and asking for a refund, or at least accrued interest from the $140.

That is ridiculous and very sad that she's been waiting that long.....sorry to hear about the delay.

agbullet2k1 wrote:My wife got her Ike delay letter at day 160, and it is now day 205.

Wow! I was wondering just how far they'd be willing to let it go. That's just unbelievable. I don't know why we're all putting up with this.

The law isn't written very well. I would still like to know if I'm reading the law correctly.

Some people were reporting 6 month waits with no natural disasters so maybe with a hurricane it will take twice as long. If you don't have a Texas CHL that's a good reason to get a Florida or Utah license until Texas fixes the problems. If you have a Texas CHL then spend $25 to get a Pennsylvania license with at least a year of overlap before you renew.

Makes you wonder if there can be an effective legislative fix to the performance of the CHL licensing division???

I would summize that the fix should not be soley based upon throwing money (tax dollars) and personnel (unmotivated and under-trained) at the problem of delays just because of what we are saying and complaining about...

The procedures are already in place, and the operations have been studied and looked at recently, and I bet there may be some arm twisting going on to fix it...Whether it needs the legislation to do something about it this next session is something we'll have to see...

I am hoping it is not addressed in the manner I outlined above...Throwing money and people just because that is what they have done with other programs is in my opinion not how it should be done...Getting the budget they have now to get the technological process to adjust to the demand for more and more licenses might be the slicker way to do this...And putting the right people in that office to get it taken care of and caught up should be encouraged more than a lack-luster business as usual governmental fix...

I for one am tired of my state legislature and governnent in general, being too intellectually lazy to take a "conservative objective" look at what could be an easy fix, than just applying the regular "liberal pessamistic" template of throwing more money and people which could be better used elsewhere...

Just my opinion...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Makes you wonder if there can be an effective legislative fix to the performance of the CHL licensing division???

Sure you can. You first need to define the two dates very explicitly. Say we define the starting date as the date DPS received the application, as shown by the earliest of the date they post it as received, cash the check, or that a certified mail receipt shows it as delivered. Then you define the date the CHL is mailed, by requiring it to be mailed certified so they have proof when it was sent.

Then all you need to do is say the license fee is $140 if processed within the first 60 days of receipt, $70 dollars if processed after 60 but before the 91st day, and 0 if it takes more than 90 days. Refund of excess fees must be sent out by 95 days after the receipt [abbreviated profanity deleted] the license. I bet the number of licenses that take more than 90 days would drop to close to 0, and the ones taking more than 60 would also drop drastically. Oh yeah, you might need to add that refunds come from the general budget line for DPS.

srothstein wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Makes you wonder if there can be an effective legislative fix to the performance of the CHL licensing division???

Sure you can. You first need to define the two dates very explicitly. Say we define the starting date as the date DPS received the application, as shown by the earliest of the date they post it as received, cash the check, or that a certified mail receipt shows it as delivered. Then you define the date the CHL is mailed, by requiring it to be mailed certified so they have proof when it was sent.

Then all you need to do is say the license fee is $140 if processed within the first 60 days of receipt, $70 dollars if processed after 60 but before the 91st day, and 0 if it takes more than 90 days. Refund of excess fees must be sent out by 95 days after the receipt [abbreviated profanity deleted] the license. I bet the number of licenses that take more than 90 days would drop to close to 0, and the ones taking more than 60 would also drop drastically. Oh yeah, you might need to add that refunds come from the general budget line for DPS.

My guess is if they took the lost money out of the salaries, that performance would improve conciderably..

srothstein wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Makes you wonder if there can be an effective legislative fix to the performance of the CHL licensing division???

Sure you can. You first need to define the two dates very explicitly. Say we define the starting date as the date DPS received the application, as shown by the earliest of the date they post it as received, cash the check, or that a certified mail receipt shows it as delivered. Then you define the date the CHL is mailed, by requiring it to be mailed certified so they have proof when it was sent.

Then all you need to do is say the license fee is $140 if processed within the first 60 days of receipt, $70 dollars if processed after 60 but before the 91st day, and 0 if it takes more than 90 days. Refund of excess fees must be sent out by 95 days after the receipt [abbreviated profanity deleted] the license. I bet the number of licenses that take more than 90 days would drop to close to 0, and the ones taking more than 60 would also drop drastically. Oh yeah, you might need to add that refunds come from the general budget line for DPS.

That sounds like a pretty good idea. Nothing like a bit of accountability to fix a problem.
JL

stevie_d_64 wrote:Makes you wonder if there can be an effective legislative fix to the performance of the CHL licensing division???

We have effective legislation already, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We just need to get the Texas legislature to recognize that and to change our state constitution back to what it was in 1845. I'm not holding my breath waiting on them to do that.

I for one am tired of my state legislature and governnent in general, being too intellectually lazy to take a "conservative objective" look at what could be an easy fix, than just applying the regular "liberal pessamistic" template of throwing more money and people which could be better used elsewhere...

I believe that there is an easy fix. We're just looking to the wrong branches of the government to fix it. Right now, I and a whole bunch of other folks are banned indefinitely from defending ourselves in public with the most common weapon for self defense. I have a letter in my hand from DPS that might as well say those very words. Not only that, but it looks to me like they're simply in breach of contract. I paid $140 for a service they're refusing to deliver on. I don't know why we're accepting this situation.

The DPS, ie a law enforcement agency, is not going to make it easy for the subjects they're pulling over for traffic stops to be armed. I'm not counting on law enforcement in Harris county to be in a big hurry about it either. I'm not counting on the legislature who subjected us to this fine mess in the first place over 100 years ago. They've been going in the wrong direction since 1868 when they started changing the right to keep and bear arms in the constitution. Personally, I think the only solution we have to these problems is through the courts. What we have is a total and indefinite ban on handguns for public self defense. There is an easy fix. We need to get the courts to recognize these laws and the policies that enforce them for what they are and to declare them unconstitutional.

HGWC wrote:[
The DPS, ie a law enforcement agency, is not going to make it easy for the subjects they're pulling over for traffic stops to be armed. I'm not counting on law enforcement in Harris county to be in a big hurry about it either. I'm not counting on the legislature who subjected us to this fine mess in the first place over 100 years ago. They've been going in the wrong direction since 1868 when they started changing the right to keep and bear arms in the constitution. Personally, I think the only solution we have to these problems is through the courts. What we have is a total and indefinite ban on handguns for public self defense. There is an easy fix. We need to get the courts to recognize these laws and the policies that enforce them for what they are and to declare them unconstitutional.

I'm with ya fella, all the way. But we fixed tha car carry problem, Do you understand that Chuck Rosenthall is gone, and new laws were passed? You can car carry without harassment or fear. I haven't heard of any issues where DPS has hassled folks who legally car carry either.

Liberty wrote: I'm with ya fella, all the way. But we fixed tha car carry problem,

I've decided that's not really all that valuable to me. You can carry it, but the only time you can use it is when you're already in a deadly situation with one or more thugs already standing over you while you're seated in the car. If you step out of the car with it, even for the imminent possibility that you'll have to defend yourself, that law doesn't help you. Step out of the car with it, and you're breaking the law. You also have to leave the gun in the car where it can be stolen. That's a sad consolation for the right we're guaranteed in the constitution.

Do you understand that Chuck Rosenthall is gone

He's gone, but the policy still remains. I'm facing a total and indefinite ban on publicly possessing the most common weapon for self defense. It might as well be 1871 again.

Oh, and Chuck is gone, but Harris county is definitely one of the principals causing this ban on handguns by refusing to process the background check.