TexasCHLforum.com

myron243 wrote:He did tell me someone somewhere is trying to get it changed to allow civilian employees to run background checks. Now they, as you all know are run by commissioned LEOs. And there is 1 that takes care of Harris and Galveston Counties. Plus the folks in the surrounding counties who work in Harris County.

This has been done. It takes effect September 1st under the sunset provisions of this legislative session.

I haven't decided yet.

I know Charles mentioned that he was putting something together in another thread, and I'm sort of waiting to see what comes of that, however it's definately something I'm considering.

Also, since IANAL, I was sort of hoping on Charles' opinion on this course of action, and what he believes would possibly come of it.

Btw, just spoke to the office of my senator, Dan Patrick. The aide there was very helpful and friendly. She was aware of this issue, and had previously contacted DPS for other people, and said that the DPS has told her that they are still blaming the hurricane for the delays. I told her that I believed that it still did not allow them to break the law, and she agreed with me. She added my name to the list of constituents having this issue.

I personally believe, that if we all started requesting hearings, and filled the county dockets, that it would definately force action. If not from the DPS, then from the county judiciary for having to put up with all of us

I have written the letter that I said I was going to. I submit it here for both review, and for others to possibly use if they so desire.

http://dicion.net/chlletter.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still have 14 days before I can send it, however, others may be able to send it immediately, depending on their situation, if they chose to do so.

Be aware, if you do get a hearing, it will be probably in your best interest to have a lawyer present. Preferrably one that knows CHL law top to bottom.

Questions, comments, concerns welcome.

To my knowledge, they are not sending anything, at all, unless your application is missing something, or prints get returned, etc.

DrinkRaiderade wrote:If you rattle their cage hard enough (by requesting a hearing) I will put money on them issuing the license before the hearing date is scheduled...ie, it will never make it to a hearing...

True, however, If enough people rattle the cage enough, it may prompt them to take action to fix the problem.

My point I'm trying to make is simple. They expect us to follow the laws. Why should we expect less from them?

Do DPS officers say "Oh, well that's okay then!"and let you go when they pull you over for speeding, if you tell them "I'm running behind scheduele"?
Absolutely not. They'll say that you should have left earlier, and issue you a ticket.
The same way I'm saying that they need to fix the problem that's causing the delay.

Being late, or behind scheduele is no excuse to break laws. Be it a citizen breaking them, or a government agency.

Can they switch to a procedure that has them issue the license before the county background checks come back? And then suspend of revoke it if they find something at a later date?
I believe the current laws DO allow such a system within their existing confines, in fact, I believe that is the way they were designed to be interpreted. It makes sense if you see that the Department is Required to issue/deny in 90 days, but the BG checks can take up to 180 days to come back. How else would those two sections logically exist together, unless they were not meant to be mutually inclusive.
It is specifically written into the law that the DPS can suspend or revoke a license if any evidence comes to light that identifies the person as someone who cannot possess one, even after it has been issued.

I don't know, thats why I think it's worth trying. I know people have done them for suspensions and such, but I have not heard of anyone requesting one for this specific reason.

I'm thinking of writing up a form letter requesting the hearing. I could spend some time and draft a very good letter, complete with references and everything, for anyone who is 90+ days to mail to the DPS if they wanted to.

The one thing that is contingent on this, you have to have documented proof of when your packet was delivered. Without it, you cannot 'prove' 90 days.

I'd also be interested in Charles' opinion on this course of action.

As I've stated in the April thread, I'm considering filing for a hearing on day 91.

The law states that if DPS has not issued, denied, or sent you a letter saying that it will take additional time, with a reason, and an estimated completion time, then on day 90, you are officially denied.
The law allows up to 180 days to process the background check, that is true, but only under the condition that they send you the above mentioned letter.

Once you are officially denied, you can file for a hearing on your denial, and get it taken to a judge, who has the authority, if DPS cannot prove a reason to not issue, within the constraints of law, to tell them to immediately issue your CHL.

I'm not at day 91 yet, but it might be something for people that are already there to think about.