TexasCHLforum.com

n5wd wrote:
Keith... Sorry for re-quoting your post in its entirety, but need to in order to ask the following: No where in there requires a peace officer to involve a CHL instructor in the process. From what I read, a peace officer applying under 41.1991 would apply directly to DPS, correct?

So back to the OP: If a peace officer (or someone otherwise eligible under 41.1991 to bypass the course) wants to take a CHL class from me, he/she can, and it would be processed like any other applicant, correct?

TeXD9 wrote:So bottom line, if a LEO wants a CHL but doesn't want to take the course should we just fill out a CHL-100 for them and charge a nominal fee for administrative purposes?

Sec. 411.1991. PEACE OFFICERS. (a) A person who is licensed as a peace officer under Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, and is employed as a peace officer by a law enforcement agency, or a member of the Texas military forces, excluding Texas State Guard members who are serving in the Texas Legislature may apply for a license under this subchapter. The person shall submit to the department two complete sets of legible and classifiable fingerprints and a sworn statement of the head of the law enforcement agency employing the applicant. A head of a law enforcement agency may not refuse to issue a statement under this subsection. If the applicant alleges that the statement is untrue, the department shall investigate the validity of the statement. The statement must include:
(1) the name and rank of the applicant;
(2) whether the applicant has been accused of misconduct at any time during the applicant's period of employment with the agency and the disposition of that accusation;
(3) a description of the physical and mental condition of the applicant;
(4) a list of the types of weapons the applicant has demonstrated proficiency with during the preceding year; and
(5) a recommendation from the agency head that a license be issued to the person under this subchapter.
(b) The department may issue a license under this subchapter to an applicant under this section if the statement from the head of the law enforcement agency employing the applicant complies with Subsection (a) and indicates that the applicant is qualified and physically and mentally fit to carry a handgun.
(c) An applicant under this section shall pay a fee of $25 for a license issued under this subchapter.
(d) A license issued under this section expires as provided by Section 411.183.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.15(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 11.17, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 251 (H.B. 485), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 251 (H.B. 485), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2013.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Zombie President Roosevelt

This thread just jumped the shark!

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.

Life's unfair. Get over it.

I am over it. I still don't have to agree to favoritism. If the instructor doesn't want to charge him (?) fine thats his call. His loss, not mine.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I had to take a 12hr hunter safety course at 25 because I was born after 1972, how is that fair that the older folk didn't have to take it but I did?

Thats unfair too. However because "A" is bad doesn't equate to "B" being good.

This is probably sliding off topic so lets just agree to disagree here.