CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

[gigag04]

How about buccal swabs entered into CODIS

[rdunk]

Another shared opinion probably won't make any difference on this, however I do have a few comments. First, IMHO, being required to get digital finger prints for the CHL "sucks". That just shouldn't happen, and yes, it probably did come with the push and support of the now "sole source vendor", who had monetary gain to receive through this measure. If the State/DPS wanted to implement the digital requirement, then it also should have been planned to have every DPS office set up with the equipment to do the digital fingerprinting. Equipment too expensive?? Then stay with the ink prints until the price of the digital equipment comes down.

Personally, I think it is an amusing situation to require any kind of finger prints to apply for the CHL anyway, when it is really the "gun" that would be the problem, in the wrong hands!! And, of course, no fingerprints required, for buying a "gun". Just fill out a form, and have a drivers license ID and Social Security number. Wallah! 10 minutes and the background check is done. Now, with "gun" in hand, one can take that "gun" anywhere in the State, with the lawful exceptions, in the car while "traveling", in accordance with the State's definition of "one traveling in an automobile". So, being able to have a "concealed gun" lawfully in the car while "traveling", with no CHL necessary, and to be able to lawfully have "gun/guns on your own property, for personal protection, with no CHL necessary, the need in State laws for finger prints of any kind is questionable.

Yes, I did see where the requirement for the prints could go away fairly soon.

I do wonder why just a standard background check, like when buying a "gun", wouldn't be enough for getting a CHl, after whatever training is lawfully required. Proof of background check and proof of CHL training would make getting a CHL pretty simple. Of course, only those of us who want to be able freely carry, in accordance our rights in the laws of this land, will apply for a CHL anyway. The "bad guys" won't be making application foe a CHL, nor buying a gun with a background check - why would they??

So, pretty much all of this CHL requirements stuff is pretty much to just "make it as difficult as we can on the good guys". I personally don't believe that is in accord with the intentions of the founders of our country, in making it a "right " to cary a gun.

Now, with all of that said, my ink prints, made by the CHL class instructor, were rejected twice. I finally did go to to the DPS office in Garland to have them made. The officer making them said in all of his printing, he has had only one set rejected. And that rejection was a female who had just about worn off her fingerprints, with a lifetime of typing work!

[sjfcontrol]

I doubt that a lifetime of typing would affect fingerprints at all. However, seems to me I've heard of problems with people who handle certain citrus (bartenders who cut up lots of limes, for example) having their prints etched off by the citric acid.

[WildBill]

I doubt that a lifetime of typing would affect fingerprints at all. However, seems to me I've heard of problems with people who handle certain citrus (bartenders who cut up lots of limes, for example) having their prints etched off by the citric acid.

Mine got rejected for "dishpan hands".

[Barbi Q]

That's not the reason for the fingerprint requirement. When SB60 passed in 1995, fingerprints were required in order to get a full background check. That's no longer the case since DPS can and does access NCIC, TCIC, and NICS from its Austin headquarters. Sending prints to the FBI is no longer necessary to conduct the "for a national criminal history check of the applicant" as required by Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b).

The plot thickens.

DPS can do the required background check without fingerprints, but the law requires applicants to send fingerprints. They could (circular) file the fingerprints, and do the background check sans prints, using NCIC, TCIC, and NICS. That would satisfy the required background check and create no new barriers to CHL applicants. Instead, they chose to put a bigger burden on applicants by requiring the prints be done by ONE company.

I wonder who owns the company and who they're related to.

[C-dub]

Another shared opinion probably won't make any difference on this, however I do have a few comments. First, IMHO, being required to get digital finger prints for the CHL "sucks". That just shouldn't happen, and yes, it probably did come with the push and support of the now "sole source vendor", who had monetary gain to receive through this measure. If the State/DPS wanted to implement the digital requirement, then it also should have been planned to have every DPS office set up with the equipment to do the digital fingerprinting. Equipment too expensive?? Then stay with the ink prints until the price of the digital equipment comes down.

Personally, I think it is an amusing situation to require any kind of finger prints to apply for the CHL anyway, when it is really the "gun" that would be the problem, in the wrong hands!! And, of course, no fingerprints required, for buying a "gun". Just fill out a form, and have a drivers license ID and Social Security number. Wallah! 10 minutes and the background check is done. Now, with "gun" in hand, one can take that "gun" anywhere in the State, with the lawful exceptions, in the car while "traveling", in accordance with the State's definition of "one traveling in an automobile". So, being able to have a "concealed gun" lawfully in the car while "traveling", with no CHL necessary, and to be able to lawfully have "gun/guns on your own property, for personal protection, with no CHL necessary, the need in State laws for finger prints of any kind is questionable.

Yes, I did see where the requirement for the prints could go away fairly soon.

I do wonder why just a standard background check, like when buying a "gun", wouldn't be enough for getting a CHl, after whatever training is lawfully required. Proof of background check and proof of CHL training would make getting a CHL pretty simple. Of course, only those of us who want to be able freely carry, in accordance our rights in the laws of this land, will apply for a CHL anyway. The "bad guys" won't be making application foe a CHL, nor buying a gun with a background check - why would they??

So, pretty much all of this CHL requirements stuff is pretty much to just "make it as difficult as we can on the good guys". I personally don't believe that is in accord with the intentions of the founders of our country, in making it a "right " to cary a gun.

Now, with all of that said, my ink prints, made by the CHL class instructor, were rejected twice. I finally did go to to the DPS office in Garland to have them made. The officer making them said in all of his printing, he has had only one set rejected. And that rejection was a female who had just about worn off her fingerprints, with a lifetime of typing work!

The state did not necessarily want to go to electronic finger prints. That was a requirement by the feds since they stopped accepting ink fingerprints and prints are needed for some part of the background check. On this next point I could be wrong, but the reason there is no requirement for finger prints when purchasing a gun is because it is not required by federal law and our great state also does not require them.

The "gun" is definitely NOT the problem. It is the one who controls the hand that holds the gun. I don't know why you would think the gun is the problem. It's just a really nice paper weight until someone pulls the trigger.

[puma guy]

I failed to mention this in my earlier post. I'm not sure of the exact date (probably May, 2010), the FBI stopped taking ink or rolled prints. So DPS has to scan rolled prints to send to the FBI. Scanning a fingerprint card and getting a good digital image is not as easy as scanning the finger. Plus, when you are having digital prints done, the operator can repeat the process until the computer accepts them as classifiable. DPS doesn't have this option with a card.

So the workload on DPS personnel went up dramatically when the FBI stopped accepting ink prints. Just using the current figure of approx. 461,000 CHL's without any increase, if it were not for digital prints, DPS would have to scan 92,200 cards a year! That's 354 a day every day of the year. This is not a workload DPS could realistically absorb.

When the FBI gave notice that it was going to stop accepting ink prints, DPS was forced to look for a digital system. BTW, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that DPS negotiated the sole source contract with L-1. As someone else mentioned, they have the contract for several State agencies so I suspect the contract was negotiated elsewhere within the government. Again, I may be mistaken on this point.

Chas.

I hope the fingerprint requirement is eliminated but other agencies have begun requiring them for licenses so I doubt CHL will drop it. My wife had to supply them for real estate license renewal after having a broker's license for 30 years. I told her she could probably get the PD to do it and she informed me that only a private company could do it. I didn't ask then but she just informed me it was L1. Follow the money! It cost 41 bucks. I know a Real Estate Broker that's been finger printed is much more reliable, effective and professional not to mention safer because they supplied finger prints to get a license. Auto mechanics and other service suppliers will be next to be licensed and require finger printing.

[rdunk]

"Mine got rejected for "dishpan hands"".
****************************************************

Well, for sure, that is only apt to happen when one washes the dishes/whatever with lye soap!!! Probably took your nails off too!!

[rdunk]

The "gun" is definitely NOT the problem. It is the one who controls the hand that holds the gun. I don't know why you would think the gun is the problem. It's just a really nice paper weight until someone pulls the trigger.
*********************************************************************************************

C-dub, I agree with you 100! What I was trying to say was that a gun, in a potential bad guy's hands, is the start of the possibility of a problem. But then as I said, the b/g is probably not going to try to buy with a background check anyway.

[Bullwhip]

But the biggest thing is if the prints aren't needed, why collect them in the first place?

Fingerprints are required by the Government Code. That's why I want to change it in 2013.

Chas.

Still time left to file a bill for 2011, right?

Even if we can't pass a bill the DPS administrative rule process could stop requiring l1, since that's how they started requiring them in the first place. Law requires applicants to send in prints, nothing requires DPS to send them to FBI or use them at all, just conduct the BG check.

[KD5NRH]

I doubt that a lifetime of typing would affect fingerprints at all. However, seems to me I've heard of problems with people who handle certain citrus (bartenders who cut up lots of limes, for example) having their prints etched off by the citric acid.

I spent a few weeks working for an abrasives company, and a lot of the employees there have no discernible prints left from handling sandpaper all day every day. According to a few who have retired from that company, it takes a few months to get clear prints back.

[sjfcontrol]

I doubt that a lifetime of typing would affect fingerprints at all. However, seems to me I've heard of problems with people who handle certain citrus (bartenders who cut up lots of limes, for example) having their prints etched off by the citric acid.

I spent a few weeks working for an abrasives company, and a lot of the employees there have no discernible prints left from handling sandpaper all day every day. According to a few who have retired from that company, it takes a few months to get clear prints back.

Yep! Abrasives would do it to.

[XinTX]

DPS can do the required background check without fingerprints, but the law requires applicants to send fingerprints. They could (circular) file the fingerprints, and do the background check sans prints, using NCIC, TCIC, and NICS. That would satisfy the required background check and create no new barriers to CHL applicants. Instead, they chose to put a bigger burden on applicants by requiring the prints be done by ONE company.

I wonder who owns the company and who they're related to.

Exactly. They could 'accept' anything resembling 'fingerprints' and promptly (circular) file them. No pass/fail criteria other than someone could plausibly say they were 'fingerprints'. Then do the BG checks and be done with it. Save the DPS time and budget with all the fingerprint handling and processing.

[Big Tuna]

DPS can do the required background check without fingerprints, but the law requires applicants to send fingerprints. They could (circular) file the fingerprints, and do the background check sans prints, using NCIC, TCIC, and NICS. That would satisfy the required background check and create no new barriers to CHL applicants. Instead, they chose to put a bigger burden on applicants by requiring the prints be done by ONE company.

I wonder who owns the company and who they're related to.

Exactly. They could 'accept' anything resembling 'fingerprints' and promptly (circular) file them. No pass/fail criteria other than someone could plausibly say they were 'fingerprints'. Then do the BG checks and be done with it. Save the DPS time and budget with all the fingerprint handling and processing.

Follow the money.

[C-dub]

I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly. We're required to submit finger prints for the background check, but they aren't needed for the background check any more, right? So, what are they doing with them? Are they still submitting them to whoever is doing the check? If so, I wonder what they are doing with them. And if they aren't submitting them I wonder why some are being rejected.