Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

So, your CHL Application has been filed and the clock has slowed to a crawl - tell us about it!

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#46

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the statutory time limits for processing of a CHL application. Here they are with citations to the controlling Tex. Gov't Code sections.

For initial CHL applications:
  • No later than 30 days after receipt of application materials (not a completed application), DPS must send file to the DPS local designee - [§411.176(a)];
    No later than 60 days after "local designee" receives a completed application, DPS must:
    • 1) issue the license;
      2) deny the license; or
      3) issue a letter explaining specifically why they can't comply with the statute and give an estimate when they will finish [§411.177(b)], not to exceed 180 days [§411.176(b)
[/list]

Renewal CHL applications:
The only difference is that DPS only has 45 days from the date DPS (not their "local designee") receives a completed application packet to issue, deny, or send a letter of explanation.

Once DPS fails to meet the 60 day or 45 day deadline, it constitutes a denial and DPS cannot remedy this by sending a late explanation letter. As explained in another post, the applicant is not subject to the 30 day time limit within which to "appeal" the denial, if they have not received a denial letter.

Also, DPS can lawfully take up to 180 days only "if a question exists with respect to the accuracy of the application materials or the eligibility of the applicant[.]" Being over worked, under staffed, or any other reason short of a demonstrable question as to accuracy or eligibility will not justify extending the processing period to 180 days. In other words, saying "we haven't finished our investigation so we don't know if you are eligible" doesn't work. The statute requires that something in the investigation completed to date raises a question as to the accuracy of the application, or the eligibility of the applicant.

I hope this helps.
Chas.
User avatar

Chip
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: Montgomery County

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#47

Post by Chip »

Thanks for that. I had been reading through the statutes, they make my engineer's head hurt.

Shortly after I joined the forum, I ran across a discussion that I can't find now about whether that initial 30 day clock started ticking at the point when the Department receives the application or when the status goes to "Processing Application". I see no reference anywhere to DPS being allowed a time for navel contemplation before starting work, so I have to believe the clock starts when the postal worker shows up in the DPS Austin mail room.

That means - let's see, I'll pick some dates at random - if someone mailed an application on 4/1, and DPS received by 4/6, the Department in Austin should have sent the application to the designee in the geographical area by 5/6, and the designee - by law - must have completed whatever investigation by 6/5. Did I get that right?

DPS decided to do background investigations in both my county of residence (Montgomery) and the county in which I'm employed (Harris). The statute specifically states that the Department will send the application to the designee in the geographical area OF RESIDENCE. Any idea under what authority they decided to involve Harris County? Is it that paragraph about how they can do additional checks if they feel so inclined? From the statute, as well as what Charles posted above, it looks like they are allowed to do that only if something crops up that raises additional questions, not just because they feel like it.
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. - J Madison, Federalist #57
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#48

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Some folks have indicated they are going to send letters to DPS asking for a hearing on their denial. Anyone whose application has been delayed 30 days or more can do this, but there are some pitfalls if you don't know how to proceed once the hearing has been scheduled in the J.P. court.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone, but I have been carefully planning a coordinated effort to have the maximum impact and hopefully generate some meaningful changes. My goal is not only to help individual clients/CHL's, but to force a change that will benefit everyone. If someone loses in J.P. court and then goes on to ultimately lose in the appellate courts, then some bad case law could be created that could be very difficult to overcome. This is not something that should be taken lightly, so please consider this if you are planning to do this without an attorney, or an attorney not completely familiar with the controlling code provisions and case law.

Chas.

Shorts
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:12 am
Contact:

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#49

Post by Shorts »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Some folks have indicated they are going to send letters to DPS asking for a hearing on their denial. Anyone whose application has been delayed 30 days or more can do this, but there are some pitfalls if you don't know how to proceed once the hearing has been scheduled in the J.P. court.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone, but I have been carefully planning a coordinated effort to have the maximum impact and hopefully generate some meaningful changes. My goal is not only to help individual clients/CHL's, but to force a change that will benefit everyone. If someone loses in J.P. court and then goes on to ultimately lose in the appellate courts, then some bad case law could be created that could be very difficult to overcome. This is not something that should be taken lightly, so please consider this if you are planning to do this without an attorney, or an attorney not completely familiar with the controlling code provisions and case law.

Chas.

So would you rather everyone wait until you set the precedent or is there a separate way to go about it?

We're all in the same boat here.
Don't Mess with Texas Women

2/15/09 - Class Date
3/18/09 - PIN Assigned, Processing App
8/07/09 - Plastic in hand

dicion
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Houston Northwest

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#50

Post by dicion »

Aladinbama wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is not something that should be taken lightly, so please consider this if you are planning to do this without an attorney, or an attorney not completely familiar with the controlling code provisions and case law.
Chas.
So ... We ??????
1) Hire (spend our hard earned money, and probably a lot of it) an attorney who is completely familiar with the controlling code provisions and case law or ....
2) Wait for DPS to do what they do (if they ever get around to doing it).
3) Wait and see what Charles has up his sleeves, and go with that.

After reading all of Charles' responses, I think this should now be everyone's primary course of action.
Hitting DPS with thousands of whatever he's planning, simultaneously, will DEFINITELY make a bigger splash in the pond then us doing one-offs, and will, hopefully, get everything permanently changed for the better :thumbs2:

Also, Thank you Charles for confirming a lot of what I was saying, I did miss the letter requirement for the 30 days though, thanks for pointing that out.
Reading Legalese can make anyone confused, and cause headaches. I don't know how you can do it all day and remain sane! Thanks for all your work you do! :thumbs2:
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#51

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Aladinbama wrote:So ... We ??????
1) Hire (spend our hard earned money, and probably a lot of it) an attorney who is completely familiar with the controlling code provisions and case law or ....
2) Wait for DPS to do what they do (if they ever get around to doing it).
I can't answer that for you and as I stated earlier, it's not my place to discourage anyone from seeking a legal remedy. What I am asking people to consider is that doing it without an attorney carries some risk not only for the individual applicant, but for every CHL applicant. Attorneys are not necessary in J.P. court, but representing yourself in county court at law and/or the appellate courts is a recipe for disaster on this issue. Even at the J.P. court level, there is something you have to do that will have a great impact on the future of your case.

My greatest concern is that someone who is perpetually angry with the government will launch into something they are not capable of handling without an attorney and create bad case law. But again, everyone has a right to seek legal redress and if they don't want to get an attorney, then so be it.
Aladinbama wrote:OT - And to whomever PMed me, if somebody can't actually beat Rick Perry (if he runs again) in the next election, I'm moving! I mean, do you really think he's done anything to actually get re-elected (ex. look what he did for education), and if enough of the State of Texas actually thinks so ... would it be worth staying.
I'll help you pack. Rick Perry is the greatest friend Texas gun owners have ever had in the Governor's Mansion.

Chas.
User avatar

Chip
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: Montgomery County

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#52

Post by Chip »

I am generally very patient, probably too patient. I understand the problem DPS is having. But this thread has helped me change my mind on how to approach this. I sent DPS a check for their services, and they took that money before supplying those services. They are not meeting their statutory duties. If they were a private company, I'd be taking my business elsewhere, but I can't do that, so it's time to try to make them live up to their obligations.

I called DPS this morning and spoke with a very nice, helpful lady (apparently this is unusual). She went through the process with me - I didn't realize, for instance, that DPS queries the IRS. Why? The statute says nothing about that. Anyway - everything is done EXCEPT Harris County. I read through this thread, then through the statutes, and have come to realize that by law everything should have been completed by early June. I'm sitting at almost 90 days now.

So far today I've emailed two state representatives and two senators. I'll follow up with phone calls later.

Charles, if you need some aggravated CHL applicants to assist in whatever you have going, let me know.

On a different note - I realized while emailing my elected officials that this is not the most important thing going on in government right now. I've contacted them infrequently in the past, but from here on out I'm going to be keeping in closer touch with both my state and federal officials on a host of other issues, including Texas sovereignty, cap and trade, health care (LEAVE IT ALONE! IT'S THE BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!), etc. I'd urge all here to do the same.
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. - J Madison, Federalist #57
User avatar

joe817
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 9316
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Location: Arlington

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#53

Post by joe817 »

Chip wrote:......I called DPS this morning and spoke with a very nice, helpful lady (apparently this is unusual). She went through the process with me - I didn't realize, for instance, that DPS queries the IRS. Why? The statute says nothing about that.
I didn't either. And I agree. There's nothing in the statues that mention IRS. only:

"Sec. 411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1.)
.
.
.
(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state;"... {etc,etc,etc}.

Can someone please elaborate and/or clarify???
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380

infoman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#54

Post by infoman »

Again, you can't appeal a "denial" when you haven't been "denied", you're only denied when you get a letter letting you know you are denied. You can have a hearing to complain about processing times or to argue the statues, but not a denial, I promise you won't make it far on this.
User avatar

joe817
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 9316
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Location: Arlington

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#55

Post by joe817 »

joe817 wrote:
Chip wrote:......I called DPS this morning and spoke with a very nice, helpful lady (apparently this is unusual). She went through the process with me - I didn't realize, for instance, that DPS queries the IRS. Why? The statute says nothing about that.
I didn't either. And I agree. There's nothing in the statues that mention IRS. only:

"Sec. 411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1.)
.
.
.
(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state;"... {etc,etc,etc}.

Can someone please elaborate and/or clarify???
I've just elaborated and/or clarified my own question. :smilelol5:

I called the DPS helpline, and spoke to an admin. specialist named Marian. She said positively that if one has an IRS tax lien,
it will NOT disqualify one from applying for and receiving a CHL. DPS does NOT query the IRS. We are only concerned with monies owed to the state, including child support
.

Marian was very knowledgeable and helpful She's been with DPS since 1999.

And a special thanks to usa1 for helping me research this. THANKS usa1!! :tiphat: :anamatedbanana
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380
User avatar

USA1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 7412
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:37 pm
Location: Tomball ,Texas
Contact:

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#56

Post by USA1 »

joe817 wrote: THANKS usa1!! :tiphat: :anamatedbanana
no problem joe..thats what is so great about this forum..folks helpin folks.
the real thanks should go to Charles :tiphat: for making this possible
thats MR.Cotton for those who dont know
Glock Armorer - S&W M&P Armorer
User avatar

joe817
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 9316
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Location: Arlington

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#57

Post by joe817 »

usa1, truer words have never been spoken! My gosh, I can't believe I've learned so much from this forum since joining it.

If prospective CHL'ers would only know about this forum before taking the class. It's invaluable. Thanks everyone! :tiphat:
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380
User avatar

Purplehood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4638
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#58

Post by Purplehood »

infoman wrote:Again, you can't appeal a "denial" when you haven't been "denied", you're only denied when you get a letter letting you know you are denied. You can have a hearing to complain about processing times or to argue the statues, but not a denial, I promise you won't make it far on this.
I read the problem as being DPS looking at denials in the same light that you might. If they don't send you a denial letter, you never got denied and they go on merrily taking their time on your application.

Some sort of action is required to stop DPS and its inaction.

[Gawd I love rhymes]
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
User avatar

Chip
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: Montgomery County

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#59

Post by Chip »

joe817 wrote:I called the DPS helpline, and spoke to an admin. specialist named Marian. She said positively that if one has an IRS tax lien,
it will NOT disqualify one from applying for and receiving a CHL. DPS does NOT query the IRS. We are only concerned with monies owed to the state, including child support
Marian was very knowledgeable and helpful She's been with DPS since 1999.
That's great.... except.... why did the rep I talked to claim that they queried the IRS???? I like the answer you got from better than the answer I got from them, but holy smokes, you'd think that the folks answering the phone would be trained out of the same manual!

There's an old movie, "The Survivors", where Walter Matthau is trying to collect unemployment from the state after his gas station blows up (or something like that). He goes through a sob story about losing his gas station and how no one in the government has done anything but give him the runaround. The state employee behind the counter says "I'm terribly, terribly, terribly unable to help you". Reminds me a lot of DPS.
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. - J Madison, Federalist #57

dicion
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Houston Northwest

Re: Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

#60

Post by dicion »

infoman wrote:Again, you can't appeal a "denial" when you haven't been "denied", you're only denied when you get a letter letting you know you are denied. You can have a hearing to complain about processing times or to argue the statues, but not a denial, I promise you won't make it far on this.
The Knowledgable Mr. Cotton has already stated his opinion on this above. Since he IS a lawyer, I'm going to believe him.

He said that according to law, you are denied at the 90 day mark, letter or not.
The letter only starts the 30 day countdown in which you have to appeal. No letter, you are denied, and can appeal, but have no time limit yet to do so.

Read this, and the next 2 posts. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 30#p295683" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whether DPS actually agrees and files the appeal is another matter entirely. But the statute lays it out in black and white. 90 Days with Nothing to show? Denied.
Post Reply

Return to “The "Waiting Room"”