Why don't they follow the law?

[lunchbox]

thanks for the info
theres things you see that I obviosly dont being as im just a dumb mechanic and not a lawyer thats why its nice that you and folks like you are into guns to help us reglar folks out on that front

[lunchbox]

on another note

my status changed today i should have that ahsome little card any day now

[nativenyerintexas]

Since no one took the bait and answered my question about DPS issuing CHL's without completing a full background check, I'll go ahead and give the reasons why we don't/shouldn't want that done. If a Texas CHL is issued before a complete background check, then most states will cancel their reciprocity agreements with Texas. Plus, we will lose our NICS exemption.

Computer checks cannot be done for delinquent state taxes and other state fees, child support, or Texas guaranteed school loans. That has to be done at the county level. This is why these requirements should be repealed; plus they violate the Texas Constitution since they are money provisions unrelated to crime prevention.

As for writing Senators and Representatives, please look at the thread on DPS delays. Chairman Joe Driver has already had a meeting with DPS and Gov. Perry sent a representative to the meeting. A reporting schedule was established and Chairman Driver will be getting weekly updates. Getting other Representatives and/or Senators involved will not help at this point. There is nothing that can be done without a legislative fix and that isn't happening until 2009.

Here is something to consider. If this is handled poorly, the legislative change might be to extend the statutory time limit to 90 to 120 days, not fix the delay problems and fix the typo that gives DPS up to 90 days on an initial application instead of 60 days. I say this because DPS is currently trying to work under the watchful eye of Chairman Driver and if they get even more pressure, the response may be "the statutory time limit is too short and it should be increased." Don't think for a second this is not a distinct possibility. That's why my proposed changes greatly decrease DPS workload, thus removing any justification for extending the processing time.

BTW, Texas cannot access the NICS database, unless it agrees to become the POC (Point of Contact) for all firearm sales in Texas and DPS isn't about to agree to that. I have something going on that as well, with the help of NRA's Office of General Counsel. (It's nice to be on the NRA Legal Affairs Committee! ) This will be part of the entire legislative package.

I am as frustrated about the DPS delays as everyone else and if you'll look at some of my posts prior to the DPS meeting, you'll see I've been openly critical of DPS processing. Let's not let this frustration result in a "fix" that legalizes what DPS is going now; i.e. taking over 100 days to process applications.

Chas.

I'll be searching for your other posts but I do have a question, since I just applied for my CHL about a month ago for the first time. What do you mean when you said "we will lose our NICS exemption"? What is NICS? Sorry for my ignorance.

[seamusTX]

NICS is the National Instant-Check System. It is a list of people who are disqualified from purchasing firearms because they are felons, mentally ill, etc.

Everyone who purchases a firearm from a federally licensed dealer (that is, all gun stores) must pass NICS unless the buyer has a CHL that meets federal requirements.

The federal requirements include passing an FBI background check.

It would be possible for the state to issue licenses before the background check is completed, then revoke the CHL if the applicant fails the background check. If the state did that, felons and other unqualified people would get CHLs, the media would find out, and the publicity would be damaging. That happened in Florida.

- Jim

[lunchbox]

there just has got to be a better way
cant we just sit down with a few and figure this out with the guys in austin and why cant anything take place untill 2009

[dukesean]

Interesting Chas. Losing reciprocity with other states is pretty significant, so if I had to weigh the two (getting license within 60 days vs. getting reciprocity) I'd definitely wait for the reciprocity.

Can you explain to me why writing representatives and senators will not help at this point? I suppose changes in budget/administration/management need to be approved by state congress, so why not at least let our elected officials know what we think? I'm not too familiar with the budgetary process for bureaucracies, so your enlightenment would be helpful.

As for changing the law to extend the processing times to 100 days or more, I see this as a distinct possibility, but how would legislators accept that when other states (from what I've read on the forum or otherwise) seem to process applications in a more timely fashion? I could imagine a significant backlash that would be associated with that. Imagine renewals taking 120 days, while you only get to renew within 6 months of your birthday.

[seamusTX]

I'm not Charles but maybe I can save him some typing.

The Texas Legislature has a very short time to introduce and debate bills (80 days, IIRC). It is not helpful to have multiple bills introduced by different legislators. Ideally, there would be one house bill and one senate bill with the same wording on each issue. The legislators try to negotiate these things through the Texas Legislative Board before the session starts.

Each area of the law is handled by a committee in each house. The House Law Enforcement Committee and the Senate Justice Committed handle CHL issues (again, IIRC).

Lobbying is focused on the members of those committees. If a bill does not get out of committee, it's dead. If it gets out with unfavorable amendments, it's worse than dead. OTOH, it a bill gets out of committee in both chambers, it stands a good chance of becoming law.

The budget is in a similar situation. It is set by the legislature every two years, and is fixed except for emergencies. The definition of emergency is pretty rigid. Governor Perry and other state officials are reluctant to increase spending, because they were elected on a platform of keeping spending under control and the budget balanced or in surplus. Which they have done.

Most Texas legislators are not full-time legislators. When they are not in Austin for a legislative session, they have other jobs. Many are lame ducks. All Representatives and half the Senators will face elections in November. Therefore, any letters or phone calls to them at this time are likely to go on a pile and not make a difference.

If I've mangled any of this information, I apologize in advance; and I'm sure someone will set me straight.

- Jim

[nativenyerintexas]

NICS is the National Instant-Check System. It is a list of people who are disqualified from purchasing firearms because they are felons, mentally ill, etc.

Everyone who purchases a firearm from a federally licensed dealer (that is, all gun stores) must pass NICS unless the buyer has a CHL that meets federal requirements.

The federal requirements include passing an FBI background check.

It would be possible for the state to issue licenses before the background check is completed, then revoke the CHL if the applicant fails the background check. If the state did that, felons and other unqualified people would get CHLs, the media would find out, and the publicity would be damaging. That happened in Florida.

- Jim

Thanks for explaining that. I heard of NICS but I didn;t know what it was called.

[lunchbox]

big brother at its finest

[dukesean]

Thanks for the info Jim. One question though:

All Representatives and half the Senators will face elections in November. Therefore, any letters or phone calls to them at this time are likely to go on a pile and not make a difference.

Shouldn't this mean that since they are up for election, they would want to make us happy so that we re-elect them? Therefore our letters and phone calls would have even more sway than they usually do?

[seamusTX]

Shouldn't this mean that since they are up for election, they would want to make us happy so that we re-elect them? Therefore our letters and phone calls would have even more sway than they usually do?

It can't hurt to write a letter.

I'm guessing whether it makes a difference depends. You might get a vacuous response saying that they appreciate your concern. If the incumbent has a bad RKBA record, he might not care because he knows you won't vote for him anyway.

Also, some representatives and senators are retiring or already lost primaries and don't much care what anyone thinks.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

The concerns about NICS and reciprocity are valid (and I did answer Charles's question about whether DPS should issue a license before all checks are completed.)

As Chas. pointed out, much of the "background check" has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal background and federal eligibility to purchase a firearm. Much of the grunt work involves taxes, student loans, etc., which aren't in an accessible central database.

A background check that satisfies NICS requirements is pretty easy; the CHL standard is more stringent.

Texas has the toughest requirements of all shall-issue states, which is why the Texas CHL is so widely accepted. Some states might withdraw acceptance or reciprocity, but only if the Texas standard fell below their own.

The obvious solution, to me, is issuance of a provisional license upon completion of the training class and the computerized criminal background check. It would be valid throughout Texas, and in any state that would accept it (probably most of our current reciprocal states). It might or might not be an acceptable NICS substitute, but that's up to the ATF to determine.

The Florida CFL only takes 3-6 weeks for non-residents, and I believe it's the second-most recognized license.

The initial background check shouldn't take more than 1-2 weeks after receipt of a completed application package, so a prospective CHL should have a provisional license in hand not more than a month after DPS cashes the check.

I agree with Chas. that the disqualifying factors which aren't criminal (delinquent taxes, student loans, etc.) should be repealed. That might or might not be politically do-able; I hope so. Regardless, any of the non-criminal disqualifiers that might crop up during further investigation only pertain to the Texas requirements, not the FBI's or other states'. If Texas wants to suspend a provisional CHL because of unpaid taxes or a long-forgotten (but just discovered) Class A misdemeanor, that's an internal Texas matter.

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but that's my solution: if the training and initial criminal background check are passed, the CHL will be issued within a certain time frame (60/45/30 days... ).

Kevin

[seamusTX]

Sean, I just saw your "Wally walk" message. Congratulations. The intervention by your representative is very impressive and contradicts what I wrote yesterday.

- Jim