Applications spike for Texas concealed handgun permits

[Mike1951]

What do they do if there is not a full return done on the background check in that time? I believe Neal's option 2 is exactly what should be done. If they cannot deny a license in the time period, it should be issued.

Wouldn't this invalidate our ability to use our CHL to bypass NICS?

I have read that here in the past.

[HerbM]

They really should only have to run a NICS/Brady background check anyway. 2 minute call.

Send the whole thing over to the Driver's License office, charge the same amount and do it in one visit.

No reason a CHL application should cost more than a DL. (And if it's due to the background then by not more than $15). No reason it shouldn't be just as easy to obtain.

Licensing a RIGHT is wrong anyway. Charging a premium just makes is an egregious violation.

[Mike1951]

Sorry, but I don't want to give up a convenience because you're in a hurry!

[srothstein]

What do they do if there is not a full return done on the background check in that time? I believe Neal's option 2 is exactly what should be done. If they cannot deny a license in the time period, it should be issued.

Wouldn't this invalidate our ability to use our CHL to bypass NICS?

I have read that here in the past.

I don't know. I am not that up on the fine points of that area of the law. But since the NICS works that way, I don't think it should affect it.

[Mike1951]

To bypass NICS requires that a background check be completed at least every five years.

The first time Texas issues a license without a completed background check, Texas would no longer meet that requirement.

[HerbM]

NICS/Brady background checks are the most worthless (actually they cost almost a millions) thing around.

Criminals aren't even prosecuted. Just do the NICS/Brady and send the plastic. A background check was done, precisely the same one you will get to bypass.

A law that isn't enforced on criminals should never be used to deny the law-abiding their rights or discourage them from exercising them.

Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or needs a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.

Review of the ATF’s Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Draft Report: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. A-2004-001 http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf

<<
A June 28, 2001, memorandum from the Attorney General directed the U.S. Attorneys to “make it a priority to enforce the law against those persons who attempt to subvert the legitimate crime prevention objectives of the Brady Act and to incorporate this new focus into [their] comprehensive prosecutive efforts.� During CYs 2002 and 2003, approximately 120,000 cases were referred by the FBI to the Brady Operations Branch. Of these cases, the ATF formally referred only 230 to the USAOs, and the USAOs accepted 185, or 80 percent for prosecution.3 Of these cases, 154 were prosecuted.

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack “jury appeal� for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL. We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.
>>

[Mike1951]

The CHL background check is NOT the same as done with NICS.

[HerbM]

And why should it ever be more or different?

[Mike1951]

I can't express it any better than Mr. Cotton.

Re: Why don't they follow the law?
by Charles L. Cotton on Tue May 20, 2008 6:02 pm

I've been gone for 8 days to the NRA committee meetings, the Annual Meeting and several other things, so I've had very little time to get on the forum.

Anyone reading this thread who hasn't seen the thread on DPS delays, what's being done, the necessity of a legislative fix, etc. will be missing a lot of information.

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.