Talked to the office of the Chairman of the Licensing and

[nitrogen]

one quick thing.. you can't have a denial hearing, unless you've already been officially denied. that means they send you a denial letter. they don't have "hearings" for people who are just unhappy with processing times or background checks taking long. You won't get a denial hearing without first being denied.

You've been officially denied, per the law, if you're outside the timelines listed above. If DPS isn't allowing hearings, they will open themselves up to further lawsuits, and will end up spending more of our tax money on defending their indefensible behavior. Since it's our money, and not theirs, I wonder if, like most govt orgs, they just don't care.

[dicion]

one quick thing.. you can't have a denial hearing, unless you've already been officially denied. that means they send you a denial letter. they don't have "hearings" for people who are just unhappy with processing times or background checks taking long. You won't get a denial hearing without first being denied.

You've been officially denied, per the law, if you're outside the timelines listed above. If DPS isn't allowing hearings, they will open themselves up to further lawsuits, and will end up spending more of our tax money on defending their indefensible behavior. Since it's our money, and not theirs, I wonder if, like most govt orgs, they just don't care.

By law, you have been denied. It's there, in black and white, in the statutes, letter or not.

In fact, by law, everyone on this forum who is past 90 days has been denied, and only has 30 days to file a petition for a hearing. If you make it to day 120 without petitioning, by law, you have officially accepted your denial and lost your chance at a hearing.

[HGWC]

From what the DPS told me, they're interpreting these laws differently. There are three deadlines in 411.176. In thirty days, they have to send it off for local background checks. By 60 days, they have to complete the local background checks. By 180 days they have to complete any investigation of any other questions about accuracy of the application or eligibility. That's what it says in 411.176. So, in 411.176, they're violating this section if they exceed any of the three deadlines, but they're not implicitly denying the application under 177c.

Then 411.177 says they have to issue the license, deny the license, or if they fail to act, they implicitly deny the license. They have to 177(a) make a good faith effort to issue a license to all those eligible (no time frame specified). They have 60 days to 177(b) issue the license, deny the license in writing, or send you a letter with an explanation of the delay and estimation of how long you're going to have to wait. Then in 177(c):

(c) Failure of the department to issue or deny a license for a period of more than 30 days after the department is required to act under Subsection (b) constitutes denial.

Here, it doesn't say failure to act under 176. It's not an implicit denial under 177c if they fail to do the background checks and meet the deadlines under 176, ie 30, 60, and 180 days. It's only an implicit denial if they don't send you the letter under 177b after 90 days. When I got the letter about IKE, they claimed they were in compliance with 411.177. Of course they had no response to their violation of 411.176. Now, as I understand, they're not sending out the letters at all, so they're implicitly denying the applications after 90 days under 177c.

It also says that you have only 30 days after a written denial to request a hearing. There's no mention of hearings for implicit denials. It seems to me that the ideal case for requesting hearings are people that

1. waited on background checks for 60 days
2. didn't receive a letter explaining why and for how long the delay is going to be within 60 days
3. didn't receive their license in 90 days
3. requested a hearing for the implicit denial between 90- 120 days

I suspect that requesting hearings with the DPS won't help that much. I doubt they'll ever schedule one. They're obviously not too concerned with violating these laws. If they do ever schedule one, they'll lose the first hearing. After that, they'll just start sending out the letters again. If they send you a letter within 60 days with a lame excuse, like IKE, and a grossly unfair estimate of completion, it's not an implicit denial under 177c. If they send the letter, they no longer fail to act under 177b and it's no longer an implicit denial under 177c.

What we need to do, like I've been saying all along, is to sue for violation of our rights under at least the state constitution. The legislature had the dubious power to legislate this nonsense, but the legislature chose to only limit our right to carry a concealed handgun for 60 days. The executive branch has no power to limit our rights beyond what the legislature intended under 411.176. They're violating our rights, and rather than requesting a hearing from them, we need to sue in state court for violation of our constitutional rights.

[CrimsonSoul]

How do you request a hearing?

[dicion]

I suspect that requesting hearings with the DPS won't help that much. I doubt they'll ever schedule one. They're obviously not too concerned with violating these laws. If they do ever schedule one, they'll lose the first hearing. After that, they'll just start sending out the letters again. If they send you a letter within 60 days with a lame excuse, like IKE, and a grossly unfair estimate of completion, it's not an implicit denial under 177c. If they send the letter, they no longer fail to act under 177b and it's no longer an implicit denial under 177c.

I believe you are Incorrect on the above assumption.

(c) Failure of the department to issue or deny a license for a period of more than 30 days after the department is required to act under Subsection (b) constitutes denial.

It doesn't say anything about sending a letter. They can send you 10,000 letters, but if they do not either issue, or deny you a licence by day 90 (60 + 30), you are implicitly denied.
If they acted as required in (b), by sending the letter, this section still applies to them regardless.
It does not say 'Failure of the department to send for a period of 30 days as required in Subsection (b)'.

The letter only allows them to go Past 60 days, up to 90 days, but not past that.

[nitrogen]

I wish I could interpret laws any way I wanted to.
"Judge I interperet 545.352 to state that speed is always reasonable and prudent if the vehicle in question is red with black pinstripes and can accellerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds or less, therefore this ticket must be dismissed."

[HGWC]

By law, you have been denied. It's there, in black and white, in the statutes, letter or not.

If they didn't send the letter explaining why the background check is delayed with an estimate for how long the delay is.

In fact, by law, everyone on this forum who is past 90 days has been denied, and only has 30 days to file a petition for a hearing. If you make it to day 120 without petitioning, by law, you have officially accepted your denial and lost your chance at a hearing.

The hearing part is also interesting.

Sec. 411.180. NOTIFICATION OF DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE; REVIEW. (a) The department shall give written notice to each applicant for a handgun license of any denial, revocation, or suspension of that license. Not later than the 30th day after the notice is received by the applicant, according to the records of the department, the applicant or license holder may request a hearing on the denial, revocation, or suspension.

The department shall give written notice of any denial. An implicit denial under 177c is a denial for 411.180. They shall give notice of the denial, but they're not giving notice. What makes you think they're going to comply with this section when they're already not complying with this section?

[dicion]

How do you request a hearing?

Like this:

http://dicion.net/chlletter.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dicion]

By law, you have been denied. It's there, in black and white, in the statutes, letter or not.

If they didn't send the letter explaining why the background check is delayed with an estimate for how long the delay is.

Negative. See my reasoning above. Subsection (c) applies whether they complied with (b) or not.

[HGWC]

I believe you are Incorrect on the above assumption.

(c) Failure of the department to issue or deny a license for a period of more than 30 days after the department is required to act under Subsection (b) constitutes denial.

It doesn't say anything about sending a letter. They can send you 10,000 letters, but if they do not either issue, or deny you a licence by day 90 (60 + 30), you are implicitly denied.
If they acted as required in (b), by sending the letter, this section still applies to them regardless.
It does not say 'Failure of the department to send for a period of 30 days as required in Subsection (b)'.

The letter only allows them to go Past 60 days, up to 90 days, but not past that.

I've read this section many times, and I think the DPS has been reading it the same way I have been. They're saying they sent the letter, therefore it's not an implicit denial. I think I see what you're saying. They were required to act under 177b either to issue, deny, or send the letter. Failure to issue or deny it more than thirty days later is an implicit denial. I may have been reading this wrong.

[HGWC]

By law, you have been denied. It's there, in black and white, in the statutes, letter or not.

If they didn't send the letter explaining why the background check is delayed with an estimate for how long the delay is.

Negative. See my reasoning above. Subsection (c) applies whether they complied with (b) or not.

I can see your point, but even so, like I said, they're already not complying with 411.180 by not sending out the written notices of the implicit (ie any) denials.

[dicion]

By law, you have been denied. It's there, in black and white, in the statutes, letter or not.

If they didn't send the letter explaining why the background check is delayed with an estimate for how long the delay is.

Negative. See my reasoning above. Subsection (c) applies whether they complied with (b) or not.

I can see your point, but even so, like I said, they're already not complying with 411.180 by not sending out the written notices of the implicit (ie any) denials.

Correct, so anyone over 90 days from the receipt of their complete application, who has or has not received a letter, which I think is about Everyone, needs to request a hearing

Unfortunately, I don't think I can, since they needed me to send them more documentation.
They could say that I did not provide a "Completed Application" until the day I sent them the documentation, which was about 3 weeks ago.

[HGWC]

Correct, so anyone over 90 days from the receipt of their complete application, who has or has not received a letter, which I think is about Everyone, needs to request a hearing

You're talking about 411.180 now. Here, DPS shall send a letter notifying of any denial, ie including, you would think, any implicit denial. In this section, it implies that people that receive the notification of denial can request a hearing. They're already not complying with this section since they're not sending letters of denials after 90 days. What makes you think they'll comply with it now, just because you requested that they comply?

Isn't that the issue already? We've requested they comply with these sections, but they have refused to do so?

[HGWC]

I say we forget requesting anything from the DPS. They're violating our rights, and rather than requesting a hearing from them, we need to sue in state court for violation of our constitutional rights.

[CrimsonSoul]

I say we forget requesting anything from the DPS. They're violating our rights, and rather than requesting a hearing from them, we need to sue in state court for violation of our constitutional rights.

HG, every time someone request a hearing they have to pay for the lawyer to go to the hearing costing them (us) more money, and I don't like it when my money is wasted so I'm more than likely going to talk to my govenor about the frivilous spending of the DPS and how if something isn't done about it I'm not voting for him/her next time around. If we were to sue it would more than likely be a class action suit so only one lawyer needed instead of one for every time a hearing is requested