TexasCHLforum.com

gwashorn wrote:I am not going to "quote" all the same paragraphs above. I obviously agree with Canvasbck for the reasons he gave and what I was trying to say. This is a grey area to interpret because to me if it is confidential to government, (WE THE PEOPLE) are the government then it is confidential to everyone else. A company bending around the SB321law to make it harder seems to infringe on my right to keep my CHL private. That is all we are saying. And yes, as he noted, I hope Charles may comment on our interpretations.

canvasbck wrote: If you want to highlight just a few words from a sentence, what about this statement?

all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential

I'm not saying that what these other companies are doing is expressly illegal. What I am contending is that it could possibly be challenged based on this law. The law can at least be used in an effort to dissuade companies from requiring paperwork that serves no purpose other than to make it difficult for employees (who are allowed under SB321) to store a firearm in a locked vehicle based on the risk of litigation.

canvasbck wrote:

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Above is the actual law being discussed. The bolded part is the part that makes what these companies are doing seem somewhat suspect. (BTW, 411.193 is the section that allows DPS to release statistical data) The State Fair has taken all mention of recording the names of CHL holders from their FAQ's and other parts of their website.

Thank you all for the debate, it led me to do some more research and forward some information to some of those companies that are planning on using a declaration form in an effort to persuade them to not force the issue of declaration forms. I'm glad I was able to persuade my company to stay as far from these forms as possible.

I would love for Charles to chime in and get his take on the legality of employers requiring these firearms declaration forms.

gwashorn wrote: Canvasbck, I would also note that it is illegal for anyone to collect a list of holders of a CHL if I understand the law correctly. So to me, IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc, those forms best not try to determine how a person is legal to have the firearm as the SB321 allows. If they are asking whether I am a CHL holder, I for one would file a law suit to make a point of them and send a warning to the rest. Don't mess with TEXAS... that means us.