CHL article in Houston Chronicle

[Skiprr]

He hasn't started carrying the gun, but if the need ever arises, he said he'll be ready.

Yeah, when the need really arises, his gun will be at home in the nightstand.

A fast response from the Statesman. Nothing yet from the Chronicle or the author. I also sent an email to Associated Press general editorial desk.

Breaking news:

-- They just reported former President Gerald Ford just died. --

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[stash]

Yes, it appears this story was an AP post. Iread it first in the El Paso Times.

[Armybrat]

I got another email reply from the American Statesman. Apparently the AP says the DPS statistics are cumulative, and are not for current CHL holders:

The Associated Press and Houston Chronicle stand by the handgun information published on Dec. 25. According to Jeffrey C. Kummer,
Texas News Editor with AP Dallas:

The number 72,345 that appeared in the story, which originated
out of the Houston Chronicle, is correct. The number on the DPS Web site
_ showing over 247,000 license holders _ is inaccurate. DPS public
information officers have confirmed that the number on their site is
cumulative and counts anyone who has held a license "since the beginning
of time."

Thank you again for keeping us, and AP, on our toes.

Sandra Kleinsasser
Executive News Editor
Austin American-Statesman

[Skiprr]

According to Jeffrey C. Kummer, Texas News Editor with AP Dallas:

The number 72,345 that appeared in the story, which originated
out of the Houston Chronicle, is correct. The number on the DPS Web site
_ showing over 247,000 license holders _ is inaccurate. DPS public
information officers have confirmed that the number on their site is
cumulative and counts anyone who has held a license "since the beginning
of time."

A "Related News Story" link to the Chronicle article has even made it onto the NRA-ILA "right-to-Carry 2006" page.

I ain't buying it. First off, the DPS publication of December 27, 2005, specifically states: "Licences currently active," and I find it kinda hard to believe--considering how much they are sticklers for detail in other things regarding the CHL--that they would make that statement if, in fact, it wasn't literally true.

Second, the math just doesn't work. The CHL legislation passed in September 1995 and the term of license is four years. If we assume an exactly even rate of new licenses per year based on the DPS "cumulative" number since January 1, 1996, no one could ever have renewed his or her CHL for us to even come close to that 72,000 number. In fact, if no one ever renewed, but we continued to add new holders at the rate required to have had 247,000 cumulative, we should have about 98,800 active CHL holders...so the math is still 25,000 off. The National Center for Policy Analysis claimed that, as of June 2000, "...more than 200,000 Texans have received concealed carry permits." If that's true, it makes the AP's 72,000 number even less attainable...all new and renewal CHL issuance would virtually have had to stop.

Anybody on board have any contacts with the DPS that might try to verify this stuff? If not, I'll write their general mailbox directly.

I'm kinda hot about this now not so much in hopes of getting a correction issued, but I'd planned to make that sizeable quarter-of-a-million number a mainstay in letters to my state representative about to take the floor January 9 to consider bills on the agenda like the Castle Doctrine and the Anti-Confiscation bill. I was also intending to leverage the "Licenses Active by Zip Code" that the DPS published to show numbers in the representative's own constituency. If the numbers really don't reflect active CHLs, we can't use 'em as legislative ammunition...figuratively speaking.

[wrt45]

I got another email reply from the American Statesman. Apparently the AP says the DPS statistics are cumulative, and are not for current CHL holders:

The Associated Press and Houston Chronicle stand by the handgun information published on Dec. 25. According to Jeffrey C. Kummer,
Texas News Editor with AP Dallas:

The number 72,345 that appeared in the story, which originated
out of the Houston Chronicle, is correct. The number on the DPS Web site
_ showing over 247,000 license holders _ is inaccurate. DPS public
information officers have confirmed that the number on their site is
cumulative and counts anyone who has held a license "since the beginning
of time."

Thank you again for keeping us, and AP, on our toes.

Sandra Kleinsasser
Executive News Editor
Austin American-Statesman

Not to get into a war of words with them, but the website specifically states "licenses active" in the various demographic categories that are broken out. Its all found here:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... aphics.htm

Perhaps some follow-up might be in order.

[casselthief]

If the numbers really don't reflect active CHLs, we can't use 'em as legislative ammunition...figuratively speaking.

ba doop psh! *cymbal hit*

anyway, it says right thar, currently active. and then it says cumulative suspended, and all that jazz.
if you let it expire, and don't renew, it's not currently active.
maybe if someone wants to go through and add all the county numbers, well, they could.
maybe the AP meant in that particular area, or group of counties.
I mean, if you counted Dallas county, that's 20,000+, and Denton County, there's another 6400, so if you were adding up like, the DFW area, for instatnce, it could be something like 72,000.
if they were talking about Austin, and the surrounding counties, or H-town, and the surrounding counties, well, that could easily be 72,000.
even if the numbers were cumulative from the beginning of time, hasn't the CHL only been around for, what, 10-12 years? that means only a few people have had to renew a couple of times, most, probably not at all!

they're reporters. if you tell'em something, they believe it. can't expect them to actually follow up on something, can you??

[jimlongley]

My letter to the Dallas Morning News was answered with similar statements, that the amount on the web site was cumulative rather than "currently active" which I also am not buying.

"Thank you for your e-mail of concern on the AP handgun story that
ran in the Dallas Morning News on Christmas Day.

After receiving it, I checked with the Associated Press, which
checked with the Houston Chronicle and then back-checked on its own. The AP found out that the number that appeared in the story is actually the correct number and the number that appears on the DPS website -- showing over 247,000 license holders -- is inaccurate. DPS public relations officers confirmed to the AP that the number on the website counts everyone who has ever held a license, but does not account for expired or rescinded licenses.

The correct number is 72,345.

Your letter points out that the discrepancy between the DPS website
number and the number in the story has caused confusion among readers,
so The Dallas Morning News plans to run a clarification of this issue.

Thank you for your concern,

LOWERY METTS
Assistant State Editor
The Dallas Morning News
214-977-8641"


And:

"We contacted the AP Dallas Bureau about the inconsistencies you and several other readers have brought to our attention. Below is their response:


Thank you for contacting the Associated Press regarding questions raised by your readers on the number of Texans licensed to carry concealed handguns. The number 72,345 that appeared in the story, which originated out of the Houston Chronicle, is correct. The number on the DPS Web site _ showing over 247,000 license holders _ is inaccurate. DPS public information officers have confirmed that the number on their site is cumulative and counts anyone who has held a license "since the beginning of time." Please feel free to share this information with your readers should they continue to question the number published in the Chronicle story.

Jeff

Jeffrey C. Kummer

Texas News Editor

AP Dallas
Best wishes,

Joanna England
Letters Coordinator
The Dallas Morning News
http://www.DallasNews.com"

[jimlongley]

And my answer to both parties at the DMN was:

Interesting, but not really believable. Of course AP is going to say their numbers are right, but a quick mathematical check of the other listings on the DPS web site that state "Active" by age, race, zip code, or whatever, comes up with the same number, not the AP one.

Did you bother calling DPS yourselves to verify, or did you just believe AP? I plan to be on the phone with DPS tomorrow, confirming this, don't let me beat you to it.

[seamusTX]

The AP found out that the number that appeared in the story is actually the correct number and the number that appears on the DPS website -- showing over 247,000 license holders -- is inaccurate. DPS public relations officers confirmed to the AP that the number on the website counts everyone who has ever held a license, but does not account for expired or rescinded licenses.

The correct number is 72,345.

This seems unlikely for another reason:

CHLs have been available for 11 years. If the same number were issued every year, a total of 247,000 would translate to 22,454 per year. Licenses are valid for 4 to 5 years, so approximately 100,000 would still be valid without renewal.

We know that more have been issued in recent years than earlier, particularly since Katrina and Rita; and some people renew. The number of revocations is less than 1%.

DPS probably does not know about license holders who die, so that is not a factor.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

It's quite obvious that the "currently active" number means just that, because the report lists 1,613 "Instructors currently certified".

In the section below, where it lists "cumulative totals", we see that 4,273 instructors have been certified since September 1, 1995.

I love the "licenses active by age" section! Eighty-eight CHLs age 90 or older, including one who's 100!

Having an adding machine and a few minutes to kill, I ran a tape on the "licenses active by age" number. Gee, it's the same as the total of "current active" licenses!

Kevin

[jimlongley]

Having an adding machine and a few minutes to kill, I ran a tape on the "licenses active by age" number. Gee, it's the same as the total of "current active" licenses!

Kevin

I did it the lazy man's way, and did all three (by race/sex. by zip, by age) by copying and pasting them into excel and doing a simple sum.

Amazingly, the numbers come out pretty much the same.

My first note to the the DMN pointed out that even accumulating the yearlies wouldn't work, the answers are above.

I will be on the phone with the DPS first thing in the morning, and as soon as they tell me the figures are accurate, I will be on the phone with the DMN.

[lrb111]

It's quite obvious that the "currently active" number means just that, because the report lists 1,613 "Instructors currently certified".

In the section below, where it lists "cumulative totals", we see that 4,273 instructors have been certified since September 1, 1995.


Kevin

Just a heads up on instructors it said 1,613 for a long time. There were over 200 certified in August with still no update to the website. That puts the raw numbers at over 1,800.

If you check the DPS site and look at the "List of Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor's" .pdf, you will also find that all 200 are missing from that list because none of that has been updated.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... sindex.htm

[KBCraig]

Just a heads up on instructors it said 1,613 for a long time. There were over 200 certified in August with still no update to the website.

Well, the reports are labeled "current as of December 2005".

Kevin

[Skiprr]

Over 1,800 active CHL instructors means that, given the Associated Press's numbers, there would be only one instructor for every 40 active CHL permit holders. Uh huh, yeah; that makes sense.

Thanks guys. It's good to know I'm not the only one concerned about this misrepresentation.

[lrb111]

Just a heads up on instructors it said 1,613 for a long time. There were over 200 certified in August with still no update to the website.

Well, the reports are labeled "current as of December 2005".

Kevin

Yes, you are right. But those 200 that need to be added to the update were certified 4 months ago. Not all things are automatic with their websites. That's what I was getting at, sorry.