I WON my denial hearing.

[pete7469]

:

Now the questions I have is how often this happens? Anyone else had success in this endeavor?

[Keith B]

Depends on what the denial was for?

[cb1000rider]

<edit>

[pete7469]

Negative, that's not me.

I don't wish to get into the details of my case, other than it was a bull charge and the plea deal I took was for an offense that wouldn't have disqualified me.

DPS seemed bound and determined to find me guilty of the original offense, in spite of the obvious fact I wasn't.

[cb1000rider]

I got that wrong... Editing the post!
Kinda hard to tell without the details, but if you plead to a charge that wouldn't block you, I don't understand why you'd be denied.
I see in other cases, the DPS tends to pay attention to the original arrest and ignore the disposition of that arrest.

[pete7469]

I can only guess that the application reviewer was the sort of pin head with an obama sticker on their car, and that DPS policy is to defend the decisions of the initial reviewer regardless of the validity of their decision. All it took was an objective analysis of the issue, and that wasn't found until I went to County Court and had the chance to refute the DPS' case.

I wonder now how much longer I'll have to wait for my card. Anyone else have a successful denial hearing that can say how long it took to get theirs?

[jmra]

:

Now the questions I have is how often this happens? Anyone else had success in this endeavor?

Congrats. Have you received your plastic yet or does the whole process reset?

[pete7469]

:

Now the questions I have is how often this happens? Anyone else had success in this endeavor?

Congrats. Have you received your plastic yet or does the whole process reset?

Thanks. As far as I read the law, they're obligated to immediatly issue the plastic. I'll wait another week for a status update I guess, then I'll have to send an email to the Gov's office.



GC §411.180.(c) ]If the court determines that the denial, revocation, or suspension is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall order the department to immediately issue or return the license to the applicant or license holder.

[TrackinPat]

Well congrats! Hopefully you will receive your plastic shortly!

[RHenriksen]

Good job for not letting the bureaucrats win!

[twomillenium]

Now you will find out what the state's definition of "immediate" is.

[Alex54]

Congratulations!! Crazy what we have to go through to exercise our 2a rights!!

[bizarrenormality]

Now you will find out what the state's definition of "immediate" is.

It looks like it's more than three weeks now. Maybe he's too busy carrying to post an update.

[TrackinPat]

Now you will find out what the state's definition of "immediate" is.

It looks like it's more than three weeks now. Maybe he's too busy carrying to post an update.

Let us only hope that is the case!

[pete7469]

I posted the fact that the DPS representative in my case appealed my successful denial hearing.

I was excessively descriptive and personally insulting about the "person" and I apologize for breaking the rules against such posts. The moderators admonished me and the post was subsequently deleted.

That being said I was successful in my denial hearing, the court ruled against DPS, and according to the law as stated in:

GC §411.180. (c)

If the court determines that the denial, revocation, or suspension is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall order the department to immediately issue or return the license to the applicant or license holder.

Instead the "person" representing DPS has determined that according too:

GC §411.180. (e)

The DPS is

A party adversely affected by the court's ruling

Now from my elementary understanding of the English language I can not see how the DPS is a "party adversely affected" by the court ruling that rejected the denial. How is the DPS "adversely affected"? Beyond the pride of an "educated" litigator with a Bar Association Certificate who lost their case against someone with a General Education Diploma, there is no harm that can be rationally claimed by anyone.

I could even accept the possibility that a neighbor, apt manager, ex-wife, former bus driver or anyone else approaching even a ridiculous claim of fear from an applicant that can be recorded had some reasonable argument that they would be "adversely affected by the court ruling". There is no rational argument the DPS can claim to be "adversely affected".

I shall update ya'll in the next few months as to what happens here, but our legislators need to be notified that there are some people within the dps who may be using their positions as petty a bureaucrat "adversely affected" to advance a political agenda.

I hope the mods can accept this.