TexasCHLforum.com

I have a question about the "chemically dependent" part of the CHL requirements.

My girlfriend realized earlier this year that she had an alcohol problem and entered alcohol rehab. She successfully completed rehab and now attends AA meetings regularly (twice a week). She hasn't had a drop of alcohol since.

Would that disqualify her from obtaining her CHL?

Yes and no. Yes she is currently illegible to get a CHL based on what you told me. However, she can get it after five years.

See following sections .

§ 411.172. ELIGIBILITY.
(a) A person is eligible for a
license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

(6) is not a chemically dependent person;

§ 411.172. ELIGIBILITY

(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse
treatment in the preceding five-year period;

§ 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(2) "Chemically dependent person" means a person who frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in alcohol or uses controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to become intoxicated or use those substances as often as the opportunity is presented.

So I guess that question is, did she go to the hospital, or did she take care of the problem herself, meaning she decided on AA on her own. And did she get into any trouble with the law regarding alcohol.

Skaven wrote:So I guess that question is, did she go to the hospital,.

The OP said she went into alcohol rehab. Ineligible for five years.

No legal trouble, but did check herself into inpatient rehab at a facility.

Thanks for the info, everyone.

My understanding is that the in-patient rehab will disqualify her for five years, but I am not an expert on CHL qualifications.

I talked to her about it this afternoon and she said it wasn't a rehab facility, it was a detox. I have no idea what the difference is or if there is even a legal difference between the two.

However, we both agreed that splitting that hair would be a fine line and she'll just wait the 5 years.

We both found it interesting that the law prohibits people who have come to the realization that they have a problem and have taken steps to remedy that problem, but alcoholics who refuse to admit their problem are still free to get a CHL as long as they haven't been arrested for DUI.

Kythas wrote:We both found it interesting that the law prohibits people who have come to the realization that they have a problem and have taken steps to remedy that problem, but alcoholics who refuse to admit their problem are still free to get a CHL as long as they haven't been arrested for DUI.

After my post last night I had the exact same thought.

Instead of waiting I would contact someone at DPS to see if she would qualify, there is no reason someone responsible enough to recognize their own problems should be denied their rights.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember something about two convictions for substance abuse in a period (ten years/) as defining chemical dependence. If she voluntarily put herself into the program I don't think it will be a problem. Call DPS and ask them.


I think I've found the answer:

8 GC §411.175. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(A) a drug or alcohol treatment center licensed to provide drug
or alcohol treatment under the laws of this state or another state but
only if the treatment. commitment. or residence occurred during the
preceding five years;

I would still contact DPS because it may not apply if it was a voluntary treatment.

Kythas wrote:We both found it interesting that the law prohibits people who have come to the realization that they have a problem and have taken steps to remedy that problem, but alcoholics who refuse to admit their problem are still free to get a CHL as long as they haven't been arrested for DUI.

It makes perfect sense to me.

The percent of recovering alcoholics that have a "slip" and return to drinking is astonishingly high (>90%) during the first five years. I know one guy who was talking about recovery and had the saying that it "took five years to get your brains out of hock and another five years to get a license to use them." Although funny, there is a high degree of truth in that statement.

Once someone has had five years of continuous sobriety, then I think it is highly probable they can continue to maintain long-term sobriety. I would personally feel comfortable with requiring five years sobriety and that is probably why the legislators wrote the law the way they did.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Kythas wrote:We both found it interesting that the law prohibits people who have come to the realization that they have a problem and have taken steps to remedy that problem, but alcoholics who refuse to admit their problem are still free to get a CHL as long as they haven't been arrested for DUI.

It makes perfect sense to me.

The percent of recovering alcoholics that have a "slip" and return to drinking is astonishingly high (>90%) during the first five years. I know one guy who was talking about recovery and had the saying that it "took five years to get your brains out of hock and another five years to get a license to use them." Although funny, there is a high degree of truth in that statement.

Once someone has had five years of continuous sobriety, then I think it is highly probable they can continue to maintain long-term sobriety. I would personally feel comfortable with requiring five years sobriety and that is probably why the legislators wrote the law the way they did.

My point is - if she never got treatment and continued to drink, she'd be perfectly eligible for a CHL now as long as she never got a DUI (which she hasn't - probably only because she never owned her own car before she got sober).

My ex-girlfriend is a complete alcoholic (drunk almost nightly, which is why I broke up with her), was arrested for DUI once but had it dismissed (she knows a cop), and she's getting her CHL. I would feel more comfortable with my current gf having a CHL than my ex.

Kythas wrote:My point is - if she never got treatment and continued to drink, she'd be perfectly eligible for a CHL now as long as she never got a DUI (which she hasn't - probably only because she never owned her own car before she got sober).

Sooner or later most alcoholics end up getting in trouble with the law. DUI is only one of many avenues for a drunk person to find trouble the opportunity to meet their local law enforcement.

Also, note that there are very, very few "pure" alcoholics left under age 50. Most use a mixture of substances, thus commonly leading to possession or other drug charges.

Bottom line, sure you could say that there are alcoholics that haven't "been caught yet", but that can be said about a lot of people. Our system is based on the assumption if you have a clean record you have the right to a license. I'd far prefer that to the unfairness that arises with a "May Issue" system. Do you want some bureaucrat in Austin evaluating applications where there is no record of crime or treatment to say, "Hmmmm, John drinks too much, but Gary is within my guidelines". Sometimes freedom is messy, but I'll take freedom over arbitrary and capricious government control.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Kythas wrote:My point is - if she never got treatment and continued to drink, she'd be perfectly eligible for a CHL now as long as she never got a DUI (which she hasn't - probably only because she never owned her own car before she got sober).

Sooner or later most alcoholics end up getting in trouble with the law. DUI is only one of many avenues for a drunk person to find trouble the opportunity to meet their local law enforcement.

Also, note that there are very, very few "pure" alcoholics left under age 50. Most use a mixture of substances, thus commonly leading to possession or other drug charges.

Bottom line, sure you could say that there are alcoholics that haven't "been caught yet", but that can be said about a lot of people. Our system is based on the assumption if you have a clean record you have the right to a license. I'd far prefer that to the unfairness that arises with a "May Issue" system. Do you want some bureaucrat in Austin evaluating applications where there is no record of crime or treatment to say, "Hmmmm, John drinks too much, but Gary is within my guidelines". Sometimes freedom is messy, but I'll take freedom over arbitrary and capricious government control.

As the Frog indicated, there has to be some measurable standard. Making alcoholism a disqualifying factor would be impossible to enforce. First, because nobody in a position to deny the license would really know how much a person drinks. Second, defining alcoholism would be difficult (# of drinks per day, # of drinks per week, # of times passed out in stranger's kitchen,...). It would be like saying that "criminals" are ineligible instead of "convicted criminals." There is no way to establish ineligibility without some form of documented proof.

Congrats and prayers to your GF for taking that step.


do yourself a favor - contact the dps concealed handgun division by phone or the contact form online. They will give you a straight answer that is reliable without speculation.

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administr ... ations.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they would have the final word on this - regardless of what any of us tell you from experience.