Search found 11 matches

by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:51 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

XinTX wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know where you heard that, but sorry it wrong. Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b) specifically requires that the fingerprints be sent to the FBI. "The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant." DPS had nothing to do with requiring fingerprints or sending them to the FBI.

Chas.
So DPS HAS TO send the prints, but it doesn't say the FBI has to find them acceptable. If the check can be done with 'unacceptable' (to the FBI) prints, couldn't the DPS keep sending the rolled print cards (and the FBI could reject them, but so what if they can still do the criminal history check?). Unless there's another section that states the prints must be acceptable to the FBI. Seems like this could be done via an administrative 'determination' (barring any other sections of the code).
Of course the FBI must accept the fingerprints in order for DPS to meet the requirements of the statute. That's not only implicit in the Code requirement, it's clear from the language you quoted. §411.176(b) expressly states the prints are to be sent to the FBI ". . . for a national criminal history check of the applicant." If the FBI rejects a set of prints, it wouldn't be doing "a national criminal history check of the applicant." The fact that the background check can now be performed by DPS doesn't change the requirements of the Code. It does make this provision outdated and it should be repealed, but DPS doesn't have the option of simply ignoring it.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:25 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

KD5NRH wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Requiring fingerprints costs the State $23.50 for each CHL. There's no money motive here; the statute requires it and it needs to be repealed.
So, if they dropped that requirement, they could reduce the fee by $20, and still make $3.50 more than they currently are. Could be an angle to work.
DPS can't stop sending prints to the FBI until/unless we repeal that requirement.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:21 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

Bullwhip wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
XinTX wrote:But the biggest thing is if the prints aren't needed, why collect them in the first place?
Fingerprints are required by the Government Code. That's why I want to change it in 2013.

Chas.
Still time left to file a bill for 2011, right?
There's time technically, but not in practical terms. With the budget and redistricting, there's very little time to get things done. By filing parking lots, campus-carry, and range protection, we've already put a lot into play this session.
Bullwhip wrote:Even if we can't pass a bill the DPS administrative rule process could stop requiring l1, since that's how they started requiring them in the first place. Law requires applicants to send in prints, nothing requires DPS to send them to FBI or use them at all, just conduct the BG check.
I don't know where you heard that, but sorry it wrong. Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b) specifically requires that the fingerprints be sent to the FBI. "The department shall send a fingerprint card to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history check of the applicant." DPS had nothing to do with requiring fingerprints or sending them to the FBI.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:09 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

Big Tuna wrote:
XinTX wrote:
Barbi Q wrote:DPS can do the required background check without fingerprints, but the law requires applicants to send fingerprints. They could (circular) file the fingerprints, and do the background check sans prints, using NCIC, TCIC, and NICS. That would satisfy the required background check and create no new barriers to CHL applicants. Instead, they chose to put a bigger burden on applicants by requiring the prints be done by ONE company.

I wonder who owns the company and who they're related to.
Exactly. They could 'accept' anything resembling 'fingerprints' and promptly (circular) file them. No pass/fail criteria other than someone could plausibly say they were 'fingerprints'. Then do the BG checks and be done with it. Save the DPS time and budget with all the fingerprint handling and processing.
Follow the money. :thumbs2:
Requiring fingerprints costs the State $23.50 for each CHL. There's no money motive here; the statute requires it and it needs to be repealed.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:49 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

sjfcontrol wrote:
Vic wrote:I don't mind the requirement for L1 digital fingerprints, but if DPS is going to hand monopoly power over to a private vendor, the least they could do is require the vendor to supply the service.

To illustrate that example, there is an L1 location in Beaumont. However, they will NOT take fingerprints for the purpose of CHL at this location. It is for teachers and nurses only. The next closest place is almost 2 hours away in Houston.

If DPS would require all L1 locations to take fingerprints for the purpose of CHL, then I wouldn't have a complaint.
i believe Charles has stated that all L-1 locations now will do CHL prints. (Or that they all will as of March 1st -- I don't remember now.)
All L-1 locations are supposed to be doing prints for CHLs. If anyone goes to one that refuses, please give me the location, and names if possible, and I'll pass those on to DPS.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:26 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

XinTX wrote:But the biggest thing is if the prints aren't needed, why collect them in the first place?
Fingerprints are required by the Government Code. That's why I want to change it in 2013.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:22 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

Keith B wrote:I could be wrong on the date, but I believe DPS said they would no longer accept inked/rolled prints after March 1, 2011. Hopefully someone will correct me if that is not right.
Correct. The FBI stopped in 2010 and DPS is doing so March 1st.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:05 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

I failed to mention this in my earlier post. I'm not sure of the exact date (probably May, 2010), the FBI stopped taking ink or rolled prints. So DPS has to scan rolled prints to send to the FBI. Scanning a fingerprint card and getting a good digital image is not as easy as scanning the finger. Plus, when you are having digital prints done, the operator can repeat the process until the computer accepts them as classifiable. DPS doesn't have this option with a card.

So the workload on DPS personnel went up dramatically when the FBI stopped accepting ink prints. Just using the current figure of approx. 461,000 CHL's without any increase, if it were not for digital prints, DPS would have to scan 92,200 cards a year! That's 354 a day every day of the year. This is not a workload DPS could realistically absorb.

When the FBI gave notice that it was going to stop accepting ink prints, DPS was forced to look for a digital system. BTW, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that DPS negotiated the sole source contract with L-1. As someone else mentioned, they have the contract for several State agencies so I suspect the contract was negotiated elsewhere within the government. Again, I may be mistaken on this point.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:47 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

G Wagner wrote:One of the reason for the fingerprint requirement is to "verify" the person does not have a disqualifying arrest or criminal charge. If the name and social security was the only identification needed to access the person's criminal record, this can be defeated easily. The applicant can apply for a name change and with this, a new social security number.

If I recall, a few years ago, a Texas judge was granting people a change of name to avoid government "of interest" lists.
That's not the reason for the fingerprint requirement. When SB60 passed in 1995, fingerprints were required in order to get a full background check. That's no longer the case since DPS can and does access NCIC, TCIC, and NICS from its Austin headquarters. Sending prints to the FBI is no longer necessary to conduct the "for a national criminal history check of the applicant" as required by Tex. Gov't Code §411.176(b).

The only thing that is gained by an FBI check is a search of AFIS. If a CHL applicant has committed a crime, left fingerprints behind at the crime scene and those prints have been lifted and entered into AFIS, then they could be identified as the person who committed the crime. At DPS meetings, it was acknowledged that this has never happened. Also, it costs DPS $23.50 for each set of fingerprints sent to the FBI.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:31 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

smiller1939 wrote:Charles, I believe she worked with Jerry Patterson to write the law, didn't she?
No. She testified in a Senate Committee hearing and I think a House Committee hearing, but she wasn't involved in any other way. Her story was compelling because of the loss of her parents at Luby's so the media picked up on it. The people working on the bill were Senator Patterson, Rep. Bill Carter and his Legislative Director Roger Starkey, TSRA's "Doc" Brown and me.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:49 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL
Replies: 85
Views: 11435

Re: CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

Overall, having digital fingerprints is a good idea, but it does cause a problem for people who live a long way from an L-1 location. DPS is aware of this problem and it needs to be addressed. There are a number of options and hopefully a workable solution will be implemented soon. In truth, fingerprints are no longer necessary and that requirement should be repealed. DPS can and does get the same background information in a computerized check they do on every applicant. There is far too little time to address it this session, but hopefully we can pass a bill in 2013 removing the fingerprint requirement.

The digital fingerprint isn't killing the CHL program. My experience is hardly representative if the entire State, but virtually every student we've had at PSC for the last 6 or 7 months have elected to get digital prints. In fact, we had only 1 or 2 each class who didn't and the LEO we had doing the prints wouldn't come for so few people. The Motorist Protection Act also has not negatively impacted the number of CHL's we have in Texas. (I wrote the bill and that was a very real concern.) However, the number of CHL's has increased by 172,815 since 2007 when the Motorist Protection Act passed (2010 = 461,724; 2007 = 288,909). Even the number of CHL Instructors in creased by 32% from 1639 in 2007 to 2164 in 2010. Passage of unlicensed car-carry was a very significant step toward expanding firearms rights and it hasn't come at the cost of CHLs.

I agree that not being able to offer a one-stop-shop is regrettable. If we can repeal the fingerprint requirement in 2013, we will be able to do so once again.

BTW, Suzanna Hupp wasn't in the Texas Legislature in 1995 when SB60 passed. This is a widespread misconception.

Chas.

Return to “CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL”