Background check
Moderator: carlson1
-
- Moderator
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 6458
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
- Location: Outskirts of Houston
Re: Background check
Maybe the solution will be for the DPS to file all applications so that, exactly on day 59, the plastic or notification goes to the mailroom--regardless of when the application evaluation and processing was completed. That way, there will be no perceived inequities, and no one starts to think that they are deserving of service faster than agreed.
Sixty days is 60 days. The DPS has no requirement to update a status on a Website--they do that only as a courtesy--and they have no requirement to deliver the license or notification any faster than 60 days. That's not my opinion, that's GC §411.177.
What remains my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea to contact the office of the Governor, or any other state agency, to complain about CHL processing speed at any time before the 60 days allowed by law has expired. Our state government has better things to do than handle complaints that are not valid. Don't demand special treatment. Let the DPS workers do their jobs. If they don't deliver as promised, then complain.
Sixty days is 60 days. The DPS has no requirement to update a status on a Website--they do that only as a courtesy--and they have no requirement to deliver the license or notification any faster than 60 days. That's not my opinion, that's GC §411.177.
What remains my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea to contact the office of the Governor, or any other state agency, to complain about CHL processing speed at any time before the 60 days allowed by law has expired. Our state government has better things to do than handle complaints that are not valid. Don't demand special treatment. Let the DPS workers do their jobs. If they don't deliver as promised, then complain.
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
-
- Junior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:50 pm
- Location: Brazoria County
- Contact:
Re: Background check
Fingerprints : Complete
Affidavits : Received
DL or ID : Valid
Citizenship : No documentation required
Passport photo holder : Received
Photo : Received
Proof of Classroom training : Received
Proof of Proficiency training : Received
Fee : Received
Background Check : Completed
Concealed Handgun License : Manufacturing
Affidavits : Received
DL or ID : Valid
Citizenship : No documentation required
Passport photo holder : Received
Photo : Received
Proof of Classroom training : Received
Proof of Proficiency training : Received
Fee : Received
Background Check : Completed
Concealed Handgun License : Manufacturing
-
- Moderator
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 6458
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
- Location: Outskirts of Houston
Re: Background check
Congratulations, Banjo1960.Banjo1960 wrote:Fingerprints : Complete
Affidavits : Received
DL or ID : Valid
Citizenship : No documentation required
Passport photo holder : Received
Photo : Received
Proof of Classroom training : Received
Proof of Proficiency training : Received
Fee : Received
Background Check : Completed
Concealed Handgun License : Manufacturing
For those at home: do not do what this man did.
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
- Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)
Re: Background check
With all due respect, "maybe the solution" is to get the whole process away from a centralized bureaucracy and distributed back to a more local -- and accountable -- process.Skiprr wrote:Maybe the solution will be for the DPS to file all applications so that, exactly on day 59, the plastic or notification goes to the mailroom--regardless of when the application evaluation and processing was completed. That way, there will be no perceived inequities, and no one starts to think that they are deserving of service faster than agreed.
Sixty days is 60 days. The DPS has no requirement to update a status on a Website--they do that only as a courtesy--and they have no requirement to deliver the license or notification any faster than 60 days. That's not my opinion, that's GC §411.177.
What remains my personal opinion is that it is a bad idea to contact the office of the Governor, or any other state agency, to complain about CHL processing speed at any time before the 60 days allowed by law has expired. Our state government has better things to do than handle complaints that are not valid. Don't demand special treatment. Let the DPS workers do their jobs. If they don't deliver as promised, then complain.
There are other shall-issue states that still have stringent background check and training requirements, but they have the county sheriff issue the license. I know of many counties that routinely issue the license within 24 hours for a clean background and within a week for most other people. Local sheriffs are elected officials and thus more accountable to local people than some remote bureaucracy in Austin handling the licensing for 26 million residents. If you live in a county with a non-responsive sheriff, simply apply in a neighboring county. Sheriffs see the revenue they are missing and tend to clean up their act because they quickly realize it is a profitable service.
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member
This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
Re: Background check
I agree with Frog! We need to break this Big Govt frame of mind. Give the power back to the local counties.
My two cents.....
My two cents.....
Re: Background check
It's hard to say if that is the correct approach or not. Having lived in Colorado for 18 years prior to moving to texas 10 years ago I can tell you that each County/Sheriff was responsible for CHL issues. It was hit or miss depending on wether you had a pro-CHL or Anti-CHL Sheriff. I would not like to see that implemented here in Texas.11B wrote:I agree with Frog! We need to break this Big Govt frame of mind. Give the power back to the local counties.
My two cents.....
However, legislation could easily prevent discrimination like in Colorado.
Still in the 'Waiting' phase of my CHL but in the end I can say I'd rather live with the 30 - 60+ wait time line than have it go local.
CHL is a great honor and responsibility so it should be worth waiting for.
1/9/2012 - Mailed Paper Work (Overnight Delivery)
1/13/2012 - Application received update on website
1/13/2012 - Fingerprints (Under Review)
1/13/2012 - Background Check (Under Review)
2/14/2010 - Manufacturing Pending
2/15/2012 - Manufacturing
2/17/2012 - Mailed
2/23/2012 - Plastic!
1/13/2012 - Application received update on website
1/13/2012 - Fingerprints (Under Review)
1/13/2012 - Background Check (Under Review)
2/14/2010 - Manufacturing Pending
2/15/2012 - Manufacturing
2/17/2012 - Mailed
2/23/2012 - Plastic!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:18 pm
Re: Background check
If we're going to fix it, how about "shall not be infringed" instead of adding local politics into the mix. The "accountable" claim is a joke as long as there are DAs who play favorites, municipalities that post unenforceable 30.06 signs, and PDs that threaten to enforce 30.06 signs that don't meet the requirements. I won't even get into the "accountable" local politicians who refuse to sign a Form 4 or Form 1.Jumping Frog wrote:With all due respect, "maybe the solution" is to get the whole process away from a centralized bureaucracy and distributed back to a more local -- and accountable -- process.
Tyranny is identified by what is legal for government employees but illegal for the citizenry.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
- Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)
Re: Background check
Lambda Force wrote:If we're going to fix it, how about "shall not be infringed"
There we have common ground!
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member
This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ