Harrasment by DPS??

[bradfromearth]

I have had a permit for over 13 years. I renew it when it comes due. This time I was late by about two weeks. This time I got a letter requesting more information about a Misdemeanor Assault from 23 years ago.

Initially, when I got the permit, I had to turn in this same paperwork—a copy of the Judgement and the records from the County. The Texas code is not something DPS is qualified to understand because my records all show that this was a simple assault and NOT a Domestic/Family The uniform coding for the FBI is numerical, while the coding for Texas is more ambiguous; it is still all there if you read it.

This time they are asking for the documents AND a written statement detailing my relationship with the victim. I have no idea who the victim is.

The offense code in my records is - 13990001 PC 22.01(a)(1) MA ASSAULT CAUSES BODILY INJ
If it were domestic, it would read - 13990031 PC 22.01(a)(1) MA ASSAULT CAUSES BODILY INJURY FAMILY MEMBER

The government code about disclosure is 411.174(b)(7) and it reads.

Tex. Gov't Code § 411.174 (“(b) An applicant must provide on the application a statement of the applicant's:”)
Tex. Gov't Code § 411.174 (“(7) criminal history record information of the type maintained by the department under this chapter, including a list of offenses for which the applicant was arrested, charged, or under an information or indictment and the disposition of the offenses.

Nowhere in there is a requirement for the applicant to write their description of anything.

I see it as sending them the same records I sent initially, and they "SHALL ISSUE" them. I am under no obligation to give them anything else.

Has anyone else come across this?

Am I missing something here?

[puma guy]

I'm guessing they want to know if it qualifies as domestic regardless of what was initially sent. Maybe some Yankee millennial Austinite trying to exercise control and authority as they see fit. Depending on who your state rep is you may seek help there. Neither my state rep or senator is worth a spit for any 2A issue.

[RoyGBiv]

Seems easy enough to provide a statement, get your renewal, then pursue whatever remedy or fix you prefer.

"Victim was a complete stranger to me at the time of the incident"

Could just be a training issue with a new guy doing the work.... Maybe a simple call to the correct DPS unit and ask to speak to a supervisor.?

[The Annoyed Man]

During my 1st background check, which happened at a time when there were significant delays for all applicants because of a sudden rush of new applicants, I got a letter from DPS demanding further documentation of something 42 days into the process. I provided that documentation, and my background check finished processing and I had my plastic in hand about 34 days later.

The issue was that, while I was born a U.S. citizen (American father, French mother), I was born outside of the US, at Casablanca, Morocco. The document DPS wanted was a copy of my certificate of live birth signed by the American Consul in Casablanca at the time of my birth. I sent them a copy of it, and that was that.

FWIW, this was not harassment. This was just them doing their jobs. I didn’t like it, and it was inconvenient, but it was within the law. At each of 3 renewals since then (I first applied in December of 2007 and received my license in March of 2008), they’ve never again asked for that documentation.

Maybe look at it the same way. Maybe DPS received information prior to your renewal application this time, that they simply didn’t have the previous times and so it wasn’t a prior issue. Now they have the information, and they’re just doing their jobs. Be angry at the law. Don’t be angry at DPS; they’re just applying their required mandate to the law, as it is written. Yes, it IS a pain in the hind parts; but it is also (for them) not personal… not harassment. They’re just doing what the law requires of them, given the information they currently have at their disposal, and from which course they are not allowed to deviate.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment, uninfringed, should be the law of the land in all 50 states and US territories. That’s what I believe, and that’s what the Constitution SAYS. Unfortunately, that is not the actual reality on the ground as respected by nearly all 50 states or the fedgov’t—including even here in Texas. Given that truth, then one of the benefits of at least some rigor in LTC background checks is that our LTCs are honored by 35 other states besides our own, because our rigor is compatible with their own. I’d rather that not be the current state of affairs, but it is a fact that it is so.

So, and I say this with all due respect, it seems like you’ve only got one choice, and that’s to suck it up and jump through their hoops; because if you don’t do it now that DPS has that info, and you decide to let your LTC lapse completely, it seems to me that you run the risk of becoming a prohibited person in possession of a gun if you decide to rely on Constitutional Carry instead. Just a thought.

[infoman]

All you need to do is send an email saying that the victim was a stranger that you did not know. Simple.

[bradfromearth]

I know that, but there is a lot more to this in my mind. It is what ails this country: government overreach and lack of accountability. I have read everything in the government administrative code. Nothing in there gives them room to ask for a personal statement and then have it be determinative regarding what is legally my right. Texas is a shall-issue state, and I have had a permit for 15 or more years. This is my 4th renewal.

Here is the code for denial.
Sec. 411.177. ISSUANCE OR DENIAL OF LICENSE. (a) The department shall issue a license to carry a handgun to an applicant if the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials. The department shall administer the licensing procedures in good faith so that any applicant who meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials shall receive a license. The department may not deny an application based on a capricious or arbitrary decision by the department.

So to break it down.
1. Shall Issue if all requirements are met.
2. Any applicant who meets all requirements shall receive a license.
3. The department may not deny an application based on a capricious or arbitrary decision by the department.

I have met the requirements three times prior with the same record. No one has gone back in time and changed the events.

On the 4th renewal, they told me it would be rejected (denied) If I did not speak on the record about this conviction. "a statement."

If this were legally viable, they SHOULD be able to pose it as a YES or NO question, and it should be on both the application and the renewal forms.

This qualifies as capricious or arbitrary, and they have no right to ask it or deny my application.

They are overreaching and to give them what they ask for is allowing them to be unaccountable.

Lets keep in mind that overreach and unaccountability is how our elections are able to be stolen.

[Mike S]

Brad,

This is not intended to be a poke. Since text doesn't convey inflection of voice & such, I wanted to prequel with that.

I also understand your frustrations that after a decade the DPS is asking for something that, when you initially disclosed it on your initial application, was deemed as not disqualifying. I don't have insight into their adjudication process, but perhaps some new process/procedures have been implemented. If so, I'd imagine there's a backstory as to why they're now asking such questions. ((That is NOT to imply there's a reason for YOU SPECIFICALLY, just in general that if someone else that had been approved for an LTC in the past slipped thru the cracks that may be the reason for updated processes/procedures. I was quick to disappointment with DoD when it came to light that the crazed loony tune active shooter SHOULD have been a disqualified person, but the Air Force failed to send his domestic violence disqualifier to NICS. ))

I also respectfully disagree that it's capricious nor is it arbitrary, as the DPS is required by code to conduct a background check for every renewal. If the DPS is asking for this now, I'm thinking in good faith it is something they need to close the loop & get your renewal either approved/ disapproved. I see that as doing their job, according to what they're charged & authorized with doing in Sec 411.176, not over reach or exceeding their authority but rather doing what they're actually required & authorized to do.

"(d) On receipt at the department's Austin headquarters of the application materials and the result of the investigation by the director's designee, the department shall conduct any further record check or investigation the department determines is necessary if a question exists with respect to the accuracy of the application materials or the eligibility of the applicant, except that the department shall complete the record check and investigation not later than the 180th day after the date the department receives the application materials from the applicant."

That is the subparagraph that immediately precedes the one you cited above, & clearly establishes their legal authority/ability to ask for follow up documentation.

Reading a little further down in the code, in Sec 411.180 you'll find your legal recourse if you remain determined to not send the email that Infoman mentioned above. Once the DPS denies your renewal they will send you a denial letter stating as such ((that's assuming they don't just cancel your application for renewal as "incomplete" for refusing to respond; you typically have a specified time limit to respond before they cancel the application To mitigate that, perhaps do respond respectfully stating your position, & requesting that they send you a formal disapproval letter if they aren't going to renew your LTC)). You'll have 30 calendar days from the date on the disapproval letter for the DPS to receive your request for an administrative hearing. The DPS will coordinate with a Justice of the Peace or Magistrate local to you, & that justice will serve as the mediator. You will be able to explain why you think the DPS got it wrong, & the DPS will be able to send a representative to explain why they denied your renewal. That judge will make a determination, & if you lose out you can appeal it. On appeal, whatever is decided is decided.

Since the DPS isn't (from my reading of the code) asking for something unreasonable to complete the background check, I honestly wouldn't think a JP would judge in your favor on this argument.

The solution I see is to send what they're asking for & receive your LTC ((if all checks out)). And if not, you can use the due process laid out in the code, or revert to constitutional carry.

[infoman]

Every single assault/battery misdemeanor conviction- DPS has to know the relationship to the victim. The court Judgement does not specify this. Therefore they must request for the offense reports & statements from the applicants. I’d actually recommend & highly encourage anyone applying for a license to provide a statement upfront if they have a misdemeanor assault conviction on their record (regardless of how far back). If you were in a bar fight with a stranger- state this. If you assaulted your wife- state this (if wife, you’ll likely get denied). Just my advice & 2 cents worth.

[ELB]

…

… while I was born a U.S. citizen (American father, French mother), I was born outside of the US, at Casablanca, Morocco.

…

That’s kind of cool. I don’t know why, but it is.

[The Annoyed Man]

…

… while I was born a U.S. citizen (American father, French mother), I was born outside of the US, at Casablanca, Morocco.

…

That’s kind of cool. I don’t know why, but it is.

Because there’s just a whiff of the Casbah about it?

[C-dub]

…

… while I was born a U.S. citizen (American father, French mother), I was born outside of the US, at Casablanca, Morocco.

…

That’s kind of cool. I don’t know why, but it is.

Because there’s just a whiff of the Casbah about it?

I've been around you a few times and didn't smell anything out of the ordinary, but I don't remember what TAW had on the stove at the time.