TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:I don't particularly agree with them doing that, but if they're able to reuse driver's license photos for CHL's they should be able to reuse fingerprints for CHL's.

Every time I see someone saying this, it bothers me. It indicates that you do not understand the purpose of the fingerprints. I am not supporting or opposing the use of fingerprints or the need for them, but explaining why reusing them is not possible.

The purpose of fingerprints for a license are to verify that you are indeed the person who the license is intended fro (the name and prints should match). If DPS was to allow someone to get a new license without being fingerprinted, it would set up identity theft with me getting your name on my new CHL. This is true whether the license is you CHL, DL, Engineer, appraiser, police, or security guard license. This also is why new prints are not really necessary for renewals. The assumption is that the person has already been verified.

And yes, this system is based on the assumption that the first time you get fingerprinted, you are telling the truth about your identity. The fingerprints will forever be tied to that name. I have had at least one case where the first time a suspect had been arrested, he used an alias. when I arrested him, he kept trying to tell me it was an alias and give me his real name. The real name was listed as an alias on his records, so it did not matter to me.

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for?

We will never be done fighting until Chapter 46 is repealed, chapter 49 doesn't make carrying and scaring people a crime, and local CLEOs must sign ALL requests for federal class III paperwork that meets the requirements.

And then we continue the fight for federal changes, until GCA of 68 and NFA Act of 34 are both repealed.

And then we continue the fight for public opinion. Then, maybe, we can relax a little bit.

Seriously, those are my goals. I just see us taking it in baby steps a little at a time and making constant steady progress. So, the question of what to fight for each session and the order to fight in is more of a tactical question to keep making the improvement than a question of where we stop.

There is an interesting thing to look at in the voting. First, it is obvious that not everyone who voted is selecting four items. At the time I write this, there are 510 votes, which is not divisible by 4. But, dividing it by 4 will give you a rough idea of how many people have voted (127.5 but that is impossible, so round up at the minimum). But since item #2 has 136 votes for it, we can safely assume that at least 136 people have voted. With the minimum of 128 people, I am going to guess that option #2 has been selected by almost everyone who voted. It means it is not only the most popular, but an almost unanimous choice.

We may not know if it is their first, second, third, or fourth choice, but almost everyone agrees we need to do it.

Using the 136 people voting, it looks like more than a majority of the voters agree that we need to get a viable penalty for improper postings of 30.06 and that nearly half agree with repealing or modifying the disorderly conduct charge.

I am somewhat surprised by the agreement on what is most important and by the splits among other things. Not displeased, but surprised. I did not agree with some of the choices obviously and I am surprised at how low one of my votes was in the poll (changing the definition of a conviction). I think all of the choices are good choices though.

BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.