TexasCHLforum.com

I bet few of any formal policy of doing such. Mine has literally nothing on paper about it.

sjfcontrol wrote:Of course I have no hard statistics, but my bet is that the number of CHL firearms that were checked and subsequently found as stolen would be a "round" number. (Zero is about the 'roundest' number I know -- literally.)

I would bet you're right on

DWLI can be a class C or B misdemeanor. Curious how they sided with the B.

TC 521.457

AEA wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Yeah I was reading it as .24 instead of .024....

No disrespect meant gigag04, but what you just posted above is a prime example of how a LEO can "run" an CHL's handgun serial number (incorrectly) and it comes back stolen and off to jail he goes.........

Do you see my point?

No. You're stretching. My attention to detail when browsing the forum inbetween calls on my phone is quite different than handling a potentially stolen firearm and taking away someone's civil liberty.

Having recovered quite a few stolen firearms, I promise you, it's quite detailed with lots of confirmations. Sure it COULD happen, but you'd be more likely to hit the powerball.

sunny beach wrote:

recaffeination wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Total number of suspensions AND revocations for TCLEOSE licensees was 23 last year. Out of +/- 75,000 licensees. Which yields 0.03%. The number of active licenses changes almost daily so that figure is subject to change.

The DPS data I saw for 2011 showed 120 convictions and a little over half a million licenses at the end of the year. That gives me a rate a little under 0.024% for CHL. We can bicker about minutae or we can agree the rates for LEO and CHL are very close, especially in comparison to the average person. If we agree on the second, then it seem a LEO has as much or little reason to disarm a Texas Concealed License holder as he does a fellow Texas Peace Officer under the same circumstances, such as a traffic stop.

gigag04 wrote:I don't intend to to bicker. Some here have indicated that LEOs have a higher criminal incidence than CHL holders. When looking at the Texas numbers, this just isn't the case. CHLs have 6-8 times rate of incidence.

The percentages look very close but 0.024% is slightly less than 0.03% not 6-8 times higher.

Yeah I was reading it as .24 instead of .024....

So yeah almost the same.

mojo84 wrote:Is there data made public? I couldn't find it.

Yeah at the bottom:
http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/content/publications.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

recaffeination wrote: We can bicker about minutae or we can agree the rates for LEO and CHL are very close, especially in comparison to the average person.

I don't intend to to bicker. Some here have indicated that LEOs have a higher criminal incidence than CHL holders. When looking at the Texas numbers, this just isn't the case. CHLs have 6-8 times rate of incidence.

But I do agree that the run of the mill CHL holder poses little threat to an LEO during a routine contact.

TCLEOSE publishes commission revocation and suspensions similar to TxDPS data on CHL holders. The TCLEOSE data is more condemning in the sense that it shows suspensions, whereas the DPS data shows only conviction data.


Also - that FBI doesn't really contain numbers either.

mojo84 wrote:Don't know much about the site but they show some stats.

http://copblock.org/tag/police-misconduct-statistics/

Lots of inflammatory language, but little in the way of research and statistics.

In the Interest of full disclosure, I know where the arrest data for Texas cops is. Just curious where all the comments are coming from about LEO criminals - somebody must be seeing some different hard data.

My numbers show 0.1884% conviction rate (not arrest rate) for 2011 CHL holders.

Total number of suspensions AND revocations for TCLEOSE licensees was 23 last year. Out of +/- 75,000 licensees. Which yields 0.03%. The number of active licenses changes almost daily so that figure is subject to change.

Bear in mind, TCLEOSE licenses are suspended on arrests and not convictions.

nightmare wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

AEA wrote:How about just forget about wading through their Policy directives and make them add this:

HQ-CHL (insert where appropriate)
Do NOT run serial numbers (NCIC Check) of valid CHL holder's handguns. (PERIOD)

Perhaps because as the stats show,, Texas residents who have a valid CHL, do in fact commit crimes. From Domestic assault to DUI, theft to receiving stolen property to rape and murder. I would prefer those folks with a valid CHL have there weapons serial number run though a NCIC

Based on CHL stats and LEO stats, I think they should spend more time running LEO guns.

Link to stats please?

The fix is to reword "possession for any reason" to exclude a routine disarming of CHL holders or when MPA criteria are met.

Common sense would dictate that outside of those issues, a check might be in order, but until it goes down on paper, the troopers are bound by their policy since it says "shall" and not "may."

Yeah that language:

"Certain Weapons. Article 18.19, CCP, and Chapter 46, PC.
05.10 Weapons
1.Firearms and Other Weapons (knives, blackjack, club, etc.). When a firearm comes into the possession of a DPS officer, for any reason, the officer will check with NCIC for a possible stolen report."

..is how they are getting there. However, it is a stretch because the tagging procedures following that are not followed roadside I would guess.