Is there any intelligent life at DPS?

[longhorn_92]

I received this from my instructor:

"The Texas Department of Public Safety has finally proven beyond any reasonable doubt that no intelligent life exists in Austin, TX. An instructor friend of mine just called to let me know that one of his student's CHL Application was returned to him because the residence history was "incomplete". It seems that, when the student submitted his application, back in April, he used the April application date as the ending date for his residence history. The application was not processed until July. According to some genius at Texas DPS, that left 3 months unaccounted for."

-You can't make this stuff up.-



Heaven help us!

[mr.72]

It's not "Austin" that lacks "intelligent life"... it's DPS. There are well over a million people living and working in the Austin metro area, only a couple of dozen of which work at the DPS CHL office.

Maybe by "Austin" you mean the State Government. If so, I agree. It may be screw-ups on the part of the foot soldiers in DPS that makes the TXCHLForum headlines but the root cause is bad legislation and a very poorly designed system (IMHO ... judge a tree by its fruit).

I have noticed that even though many are frustrated with DPS processing times and other things, there is little real support on this forum for genuine reform of the CHL process in TX. This is seemingly because it is regarded as a carefully-balanced house of cards and tinkering might bring down the whole thing. Perhaps so. I wonder when citizens became so meek.

[seamusTX]

I heard that.

If you think you can fix it, propose a plan to do so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

- Jim

[mr.72]

I've proposed ideas on this forum a few times. It's low-hanging fruit and obvious to anyone with a triple-digit IQ but apparently politically non-feasible. Politics gets in the way of common sense.

Actually the most sensible proposal is to drop the license requirement altogether.

[drw]

Actually the most sensible proposal is to drop the license requirement altogether.

That's my dream, but here's another, easier option: Make the CHL process constitutional. As was pointed out to me by a gentleman last weekend, the Texas constitution says that the state will regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. So, it's unconstitutional that they demand all the money is collected (child support, loans, taxes, etc). Ditto the range requirement, and the residential/employment history.

It seems to me that this is low hanging fruit. The CHL process should involve:

Criminal background check
Driver's license
Fingerprints
Photo (but can't they use the same photo from our driver's license? It's in their file already)
Proof that you attended a class, maybe took a written test.

This would satisfy the "preventing crime" issue. Anything above that is unconstitutional.

The cost should be cut in half at least. $140 per person is quite a hardship for almost everyone.

[Liberty]

The cost should be cut in half at least. $140 per person is quite a hardship for almost everyone.

[SARCASM]
Then everyone one would be getting them. We wouldn't want that now. Would we?
[/SARCASM]

I kind of agree with you, but then I don't believe there is any bargains to be found in government. Sheesh 8% sales tax? 34Cents a gallon on gas. How about Property tax? Consider that Texas has to have a balanced budget. Also Concider that most Legslators and Senators will laugh their butts off at anyone that suggest actually reducing government. Which taxes would you like to increase in order to reduce the costs of the initial CHL? I do know for a fact that the Texas Legislator is not going into session this year thinking of ways to reduce income. They are will be desperately trying to figure out ways to to pay increased costs just like most of us are.

The $140 is only a one time fee after that its half priced. Those who are over 60 or are Veterans get additional breaks. There is even breaks for the poor. Shux, I know some folks who spend more than $140 on a single trip to the range.

I

[shaggydog]

It's not "Austin" that lacks "intelligent life"...

Yeah...........................it's Austin.

[Venus Pax]

The $140 is only a one time fee after that its half priced. Those who are over 60 or are Veterans get additional breaks. There is even breaks for the poor. Shux, I know some folks who spend more than $140 on a single trip to the range.

I see your point, but allow me to offer a different perspective. Mars & I have been poor. I'm talking rice-and-beans-was-a-stretch-poor. We were among the many working-poor. We worked and strived, but struggled. Like many working poor, we didn't know the system, and we had no clue what we were "entitled" to. (The generationally impoverished are an entirely different story.)
Many low income families aren't aware of programs that would reduce their fees. Even then, reducing the fees still might not cut it. When you're left with a deficit at the end of each month, a CHL isn't high on the priority list. It's most unfortunate.

I don't see why the cost needs to be that high, especially the renewal costs. I realize that they are running all sorts of checks on you initially, but $140?
As for the $70 renewal fee and all the hoops associated with that process, it's completely uncalled for. If you committed any sort of a crime (other than traffic vioations), DPS WILL know about it. After all, if you were to do something stupid, they will not wait until your renewal to take your CHL; it gets removed upon conviction.
It seems that going to DPS, standing in the driver's license line, getting a new picture, and paying a $25 fee should be more than sufficent. Your fingerprints haven't changed, and your criminal history would have already shown up.

I agree with you that the $140 is worth it. I wouldn't have paid it if I didn't think so. However, there was a time when I couldn't afford it, no matter how "worth it" it was.
KWIM?

[seamusTX]

The first-time application fee is set by administrative rule. That should be easier to change than the law. I don't know how to get it to happen, though.

Some other fees, like non-resident licenses and change of address are in the law. It's an odd situation.

It seems the fees were set by a guess when the law was originally passed and no one has looked at them since.

The fees are in Texas Administrative Code Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 6, Subchapter B, Sections 6.15 and 6.16.

- Jim

[bpet]

It is my understanding that the reason for the high fees is because the fees pay for *everything* associated with the CHL. Staff salaries, paper and ink, the whole nine yards.

The reason for this is because it allows for the CHL "department" to be restricted from the rest of DPS. If the department doesn't have to dip into tax revenues, the CHL records can be sealed and hidden from open records requests.

I have no problem paying the high fees to allow my records to be private.

I'm with you if this is true.

[drw]

But it's not. Income from CHLs goes into the state's general fund.

[yerasimos]

longhorn_92’s account of the application being returned for lacking three months of data (between application submission and review by DPS) sounds less like incompetence and more like reaching for a flimsy excuse to get it out of the stack of applications that had to be processed. The individual processing the applications could be subject to a daily quota---ie, he must process a certain number of applications in a certain unit of time---and returning the application for being “incomplete� was a convenient way for the processor to notch another application for his quota.

The request for employment and residence history may be rationalized by indicating to DPS which counties they need to contact for the criminal background check. Some people may live in one county and work in another, so in such a case there is some merit in checking both of those counties.

As far as the money is concerned, I believe it is more “fair� when the fees associated with a government “service� correlate closely with the actual costs associated with that “service� and the costs are not subsidized with other revenues.

[drw]

But it's not. Income from CHLs goes into the state's general fund.

Can you show me this? This is not what I recall my instructor telling me. Not telling you you're wrong, I've just been Googling and can't find anything about where the fees go and what they are used for one way or the other.

I got it from Chas on this forum:

DPS does not get that money! It goes into the general fund. DPS has to run its entire agency on its current budget

Reference: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 54&p177054