TexasCHLforum.com

drjoker wrote:Yeah, I know the feeling. Hang in there. There's light at the end of the tunnel.

My plastic took over 5 months to arrive. They kept asking for more documentation. Then, better pictures, then better fingerprints. They kept stalling and stalling. Keep at it. DO NOT let the evil people win. If you're on the side of right, you MUST prevail.

God bless.

I appreciate the well wishes. I've been admonished by the moderators so I will not discuss the breeding habits or appetites of the bureaucrooks who I'm struggling against but I'm going to beat these "people". I'm actively engaged in the Constitutional Carry endeavor that will render such "people" irrelevant, however we need the licensing credentials to further support law abiding people when they carry.

carlson1 wrote:This is very interesting. I sure wish you were able to discuss the original charges.

I really would like to share every mundane detail, but I don't want to compromise my case in any way because I'm pretty certain it's unique. Once it is finally resolved to my benefit which I'm certain it will be, I will be more than happy to report every detail so that anyone who reads it will not fall into the same circumstance.

I don't know how much government drones pay attention to the internet venting about the abuse of power we labor under, but I'd rather play it safe.

However to update, DPS did their 2nd appeal a while back and the judge granted them audience. Briefs have been filed and I'm confident the judgement will not be reversed.

It still frosts my hide that someone would dedicate so much tax payer resource to deny someone a right that was deliberately not taken from them in a court of law.

I could even see if there was even a single police report or anything thing else on record that indicated a pattern of behavior that would lead a rational person to conclude issuing my CHL was a public safety issue. That's why I'm convinced it's not a public safety issue, it's a political/employment justification issue dragged out by bureaucrooks who have nothing else to do .

I have several irons in the fire on ways to clear this up, but I would still appreciate any information or points of contact to legal professionals that have backgrounds in fire arms law.

RHenriksen wrote:Congratulations! Sounds to me like you've shifted your focus from the getting the CHL itself, to tweaking the nose of this bureaucrat who "works" for us - good for you :-)

Thanks.

As a matter of principle at this point I will continue the endeavor.

I have a non-resident CHL from another state that's valid here so I can carry anyway. This bureaucrook has made it personal.

ELB wrote:

pete7469 wrote: I won the DPS appeal again.

...

To make sure I understand: You were denied a CHL, then you had an initial hearing to appeal the denial, which you won. DPS appealed that decision to the next level up, and you won at that level also. Is that correct?

And from some source(s) you are expecting DPS to appeal yet again?

That is exactly it.

I appealed the denial and won in a JP court in my town.

DPS appealed it to the county and I won again.

My lawyer was contacted by the county court that DPS was requesting information that usually is requested for use in appeals cases, and they were asking him for some paperwork. Since my budget doesn't include having a lawyer on payroll, his representation ended at the point the judge signed the order in my favor. As a courtesy he called me up and told me I should expect an appeal, but encouraged me to continue fighting.

I will continue fighting this all the way.

I appreciate the well wishes and agree with the frustration obviously.

I still want to hear from anyone who has dealt with appeals and winning them.

I'm convinced I'm dealing with a petty drone and their political agenda.

I haven't heard a peep from people who have been denied, let alone pushed the issue and won their case.

At what point does this madness stop, and how do we deal with these petty bureaucrooks who deprive people of their rights in spite of having lost the case in court?

Can these people continue to deny rights to applicants by narrowly defining certain parts of the laws while ignoring the laws that "adversely" effect them?

I'm hoping political winds change here, and a lot of these offices are closed, because it's obvious to me they're doing nothing to advance "public safety", but advancing an anti-freedom political agenda.

I posted the fact that the DPS representative in my case appealed my successful denial hearing.

I was excessively descriptive and personally insulting about the "person" and I apologize for breaking the rules against such posts. The moderators admonished me and the post was subsequently deleted.

That being said I was successful in my denial hearing, the court ruled against DPS, and according to the law as stated in:

GC §411.180. (c)

If the court determines that the denial, revocation, or suspension is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall order the department to immediately issue or return the license to the applicant or license holder.

Instead the "person" representing DPS has determined that according too:

GC §411.180. (e)

The DPS is

A party adversely affected by the court's ruling

Now from my elementary understanding of the English language I can not see how the DPS is a "party adversely affected" by the court ruling that rejected the denial. How is the DPS "adversely affected"? Beyond the pride of an "educated" litigator with a Bar Association Certificate who lost their case against someone with a General Education Diploma, there is no harm that can be rationally claimed by anyone.

I could even accept the possibility that a neighbor, apt manager, ex-wife, former bus driver or anyone else approaching even a ridiculous claim of fear from an applicant that can be recorded had some reasonable argument that they would be "adversely affected by the court ruling". There is no rational argument the DPS can claim to be "adversely affected".

I shall update ya'll in the next few months as to what happens here, but our legislators need to be notified that there are some people within the dps who may be using their positions as petty a bureaucrat "adversely affected" to advance a political agenda.

I hope the mods can accept this.

jmra wrote:

pete7469 wrote:

:

Now the questions I have is how often this happens? Anyone else had success in this endeavor?

Congrats. Have you received your plastic yet or does the whole process reset?

Thanks. As far as I read the law, they're obligated to immediatly issue the plastic. I'll wait another week for a status update I guess, then I'll have to send an email to the Gov's office.



GC §411.180.(c) ]If the court determines that the denial, revocation, or suspension is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall order the department to immediately issue or return the license to the applicant or license holder.

:

Now the questions I have is how often this happens? Anyone else had success in this endeavor?