CHL shows up in background check

[chasfm11]

I don't know the exact title of the search only that the one that discloses your CHL status to LEOs is "wants and warrants." I cannot imagine that the results of that would be available to any commercial investigation mechanism. It would seem to me that it might compromise ongoing LE work. LEOs, please feel free to chime in here. I, too, would like to know more in this area - as much as I'm allowed to know.

There are commercial search programs and you, as an individual, can buy the right to use them to search. If you are a small business owner and wanted to do a BGC on a potential employee prior to hiring them, you can pay to do that, with the information that they provide to you. As I understand it, those searches can be purchase by person, by day, by month and by year. My guess is that larger companies have that same search facility.

My expectation is that the difference between the LEO search and the commercial one is that IN PROGRESS stuff is disclosed. The commercial search is going to find convictions. How much crossover in areas like CHL isn't clear to me. My insurance company, for example, will know how many traffic citations I've been given but I doubt that that is real time data.

I'm getting more and more interested in all types of data about me. In spite of HIPPA, more of my medical information is available to people that shouldn't have it than I want. The same is true with the credit bureau/credit score stuff. Inquiries about my person data should only be given in response to legitimate uses. I'm not sure that the 3 companies who collect this stuff are as careful as they should be.

My employer has a "no firearms" policy but since I work out of my house, it doesn't apply to me unless I got into an established "office" location that they own or lease. I certainly don't want them to be able to perform a query that discloses my CHL. They have no need for that information.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Talking with a co-worker the other day who does background checks on certain individuals...and they mentioned that a Texas CHL will show up in a background check. I was always under the impression that DPS would only release this information to other law enforcement agencies. I have also recently seen private investigators offering to to a CHL check on individuals in question.

My concern on this would be applying for a job and being screened out due to having a CHL after they run a background check.

Welcome to the TexasCHLforum and thanks for this post. I would be very interested in talking with your co-worker if he/she would be willing. If so, please have them call me at my office 713-228-0700.

Thanks,
Chas.

[jester]

I don't know anyone with a CHL who has received the legally required notification either.

[suthdj]

Talking with a co-worker the other day who does background checks on certain individuals...and they mentioned that a Texas CHL will show up in a background check. I was always under the impression that DPS would only release this information to other law enforcement agencies. I have also recently seen private investigators offering to to a CHL check on individuals in question.

My concern on this would be applying for a job and being screened out due to having a CHL after they run a background check.

Tell him to prove it.

[ELB]

...

(TCIC is Texas returns, databases that are pertinent to Texas only. CHL, Texas agency warrants and Protective Orders)

How interesting. Warrants (i.e. negtive/danger indicator), Protective Orders (another negative/danger indicator),... and CHLs. Of course one would lump felony-free, violent-misdemeanor-free, taxes-and-child-support-paid-up citizens in with people wanted on warrants and/or have POs filed against them. Makes perfect sense.

It may have been necessary politically, if wrong on principle, back in the 90s to pretend law enforcement had to be protected from CHL'ers, but I think that has long since ceased to be reasonable..

[Hoi Polloi]

...

(TCIC is Texas returns, databases that are pertinent to Texas only. CHL, Texas agency warrants and Protective Orders)

How interesting. Warrants (i.e. negtive/danger indicator), Protective Orders (another negative/danger indicator),... and CHLs. Of course one would lump felony-free, violent-misdemeanor-free, taxes-and-child-support-paid-up citizens in with people wanted on warrants and/or have POs filed against them. Makes perfect sense.

It may have been necessary politically, if wrong on principle, back in the 90s to pretend law enforcement had to be protected from CHL'ers, but I think that has long since ceased to be reasonable..

If you are the victim being covered by a protective order it shows up in the same place. It's a catch-all category of other, not an indicator of risk.

[srothstein]

Jim,

There are many ways to have CHL information show up on a background check legally, even if the information is confidential at the state level. The obvious one is CHL information that was gathered before the records were made confidential, but the other, less obvious common one is for the CHL holder to waive confidentiality. A third possibility, though i think it is unlikely, is that a gun range could sell the list of its customers, including the classes they took. Not definitive, but if a person took the CHL class, there is a good chance they went ahead and got a CHL.

This second one is more common than people realize. Just the fact that we talk about it on this board allows the public to know we have CHL's. It may take some work to tie some screen names to the real person, but the superdatabases commercially used can do it. Data mining is a rapidly growing field, where lots of seemingly miscellaneous data is collected and then the computers sort it to try to put related data together. I remember being taught about this in military security classes back in the 70's, and the computers we have now make it much easier.

Think how many times we have posted on this forum that someone used a CHL as a secondary, or even primary if they did not have their other, ID for some reason. Banks and stores have no legal obligation to not reveal this information that we willingly provide. If they wrote it down somewhere, it got stored in a database, and there is a good chance that it made its way into one of the commercial databases investigators use for background checks.

And, as Jester pointed out, it really depends on who runs the background check and why. PD's are not supposed to do it for schools, but many have done it anyway. I did not think this was what the OP meant since it was a coworker that ran background checks, but it is possible he goes through the PD.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

CHL's could be outed by talking about their gun hobby on Facebook.

Facebook, Google, or most any website can take any data you provide
about yourself and sell it to who-knows-who. Once it's out there, you
can't put your "CHL Status" back in the bottle.

You can't unring a bell.

SIA

[TexasGal]

There is no such thing as random information to the sort of computers that drive business these days. Acxiom found the 9-11 perps within days. The CIA, FBI, etc...not a clue. Who is Acxiom? They have massive amounts of info on just about everybody. Just about every thing you buy is recorded somehow. They have your credit card numbers, your social security numbers, your addresses, all the info you gave Sears, or Home Depot, or anyone else you have credit with. Use one of those little discount keyring cards at your local store? One of your retailer credit cards? A gas card? Buying ammo? What kind and where and how much is recorded. They have the computers that track almost every purchase made by most credit cards. Even Citigroup's massive info is theirs. If they want to know where you go, who you spend time with, what you buy, it's all there. They found the bad guys when our government couldn't. If Osama Bin Laden lived in this country, he could not hide from them and eat. I doubt their info is available for background checks. I'm just using them for an example of how we simply do not live in a private world any longer despite laws to the contrary. Read the info in the first link article and you will see what I mean.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... /index.htm
http://www.acxiom.com/Pages/Home.aspx

[b322da]

I had a couple of interesting twists on this recently which are at least slightly on topic. Within a period of two months my car was bent slightly when the other driver got into my space. Both the striker and the strikee vehicles remained operable. On both occasions the local PD was notified, and an officer responded.

In the first instance when I was asked for my driver's license and proof of insurance I also, of course, showed the officer my CHL. He responded, "I don't need that." I guess that was a correct response, but his attitude made it sound like I was unnecessarily bothering him when I showed my CHL. He never asked whether I was carrying, and, as usual, I was.

The second instance was somewhat troublesome. When I showed the officer my CHL along with my driver's license she asked me whether I was carrying. I responded in the affirmative, and told her it was IWB on the right side at 4 o'clock.

The officer appeared to be somewhat panicked, and asked me to step back and keep my hands in sight. She then said something into the radio on her shoulder, calling HQ, I would suppose. After hearing the response she asked me to carefully remove the handgun and place it under the seat of my car, which I did. This was quite unexpected, and I complied very carefully.

To get back somewhat on topic, this whole exercise was viewed by the four occupants of the other vehicle, so one certainly might be justified in saying that she revealed my having a CHL to those persons. As I am not unknown in the local community I would not be surprised for this info to have spread. In fact I had given my calling card to both the officer and the other driver in order to expedite their mutual paperwork.

As a general matter, since these two officers were members of the same city PD, the incidents caused me, perhaps unfairly, to conclude that a little local PD education might be in order. While I recognized that an LEO has to be flexible in his or her approach to a person carrying a concealed weapon, I personally think the "flexibility" displayed when comparing these two incidents went a little far. My personal opinion of the second officer's reaction was that she had no idea what she should do, if anything, and had to make a radio call for guidance. If I had done anything to make her feel threatened I could understand, but I honestly do not think that was a possibility. I pegged her as being new on the job, confused by what her actions should be, and poorly trained in regard to a routine nonthreatening contact with one having a CHL.

Once again, just a personal observation and opinion, and I may be unfair. Collaterally, I would think I would have been more of a danger to her and others being required to draw my weapon, essentially in public, even though "carefully," than I was leaving it in the CrossBreed. I might note that she never loosened the retention strap on her holster, which bolsters my conclusion that I posed no apparent threat to her or others. I have no trouble visualizing this as being what she might routinely do in similar circumstances in the future.

[chasfm11]

actually the information is attached to the TCIC portion of the 'wanted' return.

running a Texas DL only will not trigger the CHL portion of the database.. an operator must, at the request of an officer run a TCIC/NCIC request on the person.
(TCIC is Texas returns, databases that are pertinent to Texas only. CHL, Texas agency warrants and Protective Orders)
(NCIC is National - out of state warrants, Missing/Endangered persons, )

so just having the DL would not give anyone the CHL information.

I'd like to follow up on this if I might do so. Let's suppose that I'm in NM and have been pulled over for a traffic stop. Can the NM LEO pull the TCIC? I know that he/she should be able to pull the NCIC. I'm assuming that the TCIC would display protective orders, etc. in addition to the CHL.

If the NM LEO cannot pull TCIC, how else would they know about an active warrant against me by a local municipality? No, I don't have anything like that, I'm just asking. Let's suppose that it is a bench warrant for a traffic fine that I didn't pay. Again, I'm just curious.

[seamusTX]

In the first instance when I was asked for my driver's license and proof of insurance I also, of course, showed the officer my CHL. He responded, "I don't need that." I guess that was a correct response, but his attitude made it sound like I was unnecessarily bothering him when I showed my CHL.

Those exact words, or "I don't need to see that," have been reported so many times that they must be part of some training program or a canned presentation that is commonly used.

I would be more than happy with that response.

As for the fact of your having a CHL being exposed in some way to other members of the community, it is going to happen.

You weren't the only person in your CHL class, were you? Your instructor and the person who took your fingerprints know.

I have written a couple of letters to the editor on CHL-related subjects that were published in the local newspaper. In those letters I did not specifically state whether or not I had a CHL, but it was obvious that someone who did not would have no interest in the topic.

People have to accept the fact that it is perfectly legal and no different from your religion or whether you are single, married, or divorced, etc.

- Jim

[Max]

I was under the assumption it was impossible to find out unless the information was requested by law enforcement. However since my employer gave me a week off to attend instructor classes in Georgetown this year they probably know I have a CHL. Not all employers see it as a bad thing, it might even help you if it's known in some cases.