Employment background checks & CHL

[C-dub]

I thought this information could be requested, but we, the CHL holder, would be notified of such a request. Did this change? I thought even I could find out if anyone was a CHL holder, but had to do so in writing for a specific person and they would be notified that this information had been requested.

[joe817]

I thought this information could be requested, but we, the CHL holder, would be notified of such a request. Did this change? I thought even I could find out if anyone was a CHL holder, but had to do so in writing for a specific person and they would be notified that this information had been requested.

C-dub, you are correct. But it only applies to LEO requests. And it's not a specific person....it's a specific agency.

Ordinary citizens/employers/companies, etc. who want to find out will be denied.

Now that does NOT apply to CHL instructors. The DPS will furnish that info to anyone. But it only applies to DPS certified CHL instructors. Hope that helps.

[C-dub]

I thought this information could be requested, but we, the CHL holder, would be notified of such a request. Did this change? I thought even I could find out if anyone was a CHL holder, but had to do so in writing for a specific person and they would be notified that this information had been requested.

C-dub, you are correct. But it only applies to LEO requests. And it's not a specific person....it's a specific agency.

Okay, cool.

Oops. I meant, for example, if someone wanted to know if I had a CHL that the request had to be specifically for me. They couldn't just do a blanket search for all the people that lived in my area. Or could they? Maybe that's the way it used to be when a non LE person could request this information.

[joe817]

I thought this information could be requested, but we, the CHL holder, would be notified of such a request. Did this change? I thought even I could find out if anyone was a CHL holder, but had to do so in writing for a specific person and they would be notified that this information had been requested.

C-dub, you are correct. But it only applies to LEO requests. And it's not a specific person....it's a specific agency.

Okay, cool.

Oops. I meant, for example, if someone wanted to know if I had a CHL that the request had to be specifically for me. They couldn't just do a blanket search for all the people that lived in my area. Or could they? Maybe that's the way it used to be when a non LE person could request this information.

No. No one except a LEO can request and get info on a CHL holder, as I understand it, as it is excluded from the Opens Record Law. It is considered confidential information that ordinary citizens do not have access to. Whether one person, or a group of people.

[rspeir]

HB991 in 2007 made CHL records confidential.

[roberts]

Here's the law in its entirety for confidential records for a CHL holder:

"Sec. 411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. (a) The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552.

(b) An applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records regarding the applicant or license holder on request and the payment of a reasonable fee.

(c) The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the agency making the request.

(d) This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department."

Are you sure? I know people have their CHL status disclosed during a traffic stop and they didn't get a notice from DPS with "the name of the agency making the request."

[joe817]

Here's the law in its entirety for confidential records for a CHL holder:

"Sec. 411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. (a) The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552.

(b) An applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records regarding the applicant or license holder on request and the payment of a reasonable fee.

(c) The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the agency making the request.

(d) This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department."

Are you sure? I know people have their CHL status disclosed during a traffic stop and they didn't get a notice from DPS with "the name of the agency making the request."

Ahhhhh, now you are throwing a different set of variables into the equation, with the key words being "traffic stop". An entire set of laws and regulations come into play now......as opposed to an individual or business requesting confidential information on someone. The question now is "does a LEO have legal right to access that type of confidential information when making a "traffic stop"? I believe the answer would be yes.

[roberts]

According to the law you quoted the law enforcement agency is allowed access to the records for a traffic stop but then DPS "shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the agency making the request."

[joe817]

According to the law you quoted the law enforcement agency is allowed access to the records for a traffic stop but then DPS "shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the agency making the request."

I'm going blind I tell you, blinddddddd!!! Can you tell me where you see the term "traffic stop" mentioned in Sec. 411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS??

Methinks you are mixing apples and oranges.

[srothstein]

This is an interesting question. I know of no laws specifically regarding a traffic stop or any other investigation and what records are available without a subpoena. So, given that this law makes the records available to officers, I believe the intent was to allow them to access the files for investigations. Traffic stops are just another form of investigation (one where you are legally under arrest, BTW).

I had not thought about it, but the way I read this law, you should get a letter from DPS whenever you are run on a traffic stop. Basically, the letter should come any time your name is run through the driver's license system and it returns a CHL hit. this includes other times than traffic stops for many officers (such as running your DL when you ar ethe complainant on some report).

I would think DPS is not aware of the implications of the law, or their computers would be programmed to spit the letter out each time you get run. Either that, or I am missing some peice of information or law that they are aware of. that is a very good possibility too.

[NcongruNt]

I thought this information could be requested, but we, the CHL holder, would be notified of such a request. Did this change? I thought even I could find out if anyone was a CHL holder, but had to do so in writing for a specific person and they would be notified that this information had been requested.

Since no one has addressed this specifically, let me help with some clarification for C-dub.

Yes, it used to be this way. Anyone with specific information (Name and address, IIRC) could request a CHL status on any individual by paying a fee. When the request was made, DPS would notify the CHL holder by mail and give the information to the querying party. It was changed during the 2007 session to make CHL records completely inaccessible to the public. From what I understand, this was driven in large part by Canon USA's predatory behavior towards its employees who are CHL holders. This is why, as a photographer, I switched from Canon to Nikon and refuse to support them ever again with my purchasing power.

[e-rawk]

I work for a very large company (think fruit) that I wouldn't exactly call "gun friendly" that threatened to run me through all kinds of background checks before I was hired. At hearing this I wondered whether I would be DQ from employment myself because of my CHL status. They made good on their threats (the company can afford to), contacted all my references, past employers, ran my credit and most likely checked my criminal and education history. Well long anxious story short, I was hired and have been happily employed by this company for sometime now.

Hope that makes you feel better.

[ScottDLS]

For kicks I once ran one of those commercial background checks on myself. This (ChoicePoint) was the kind that large companies have used when checking me out when I was getting a contractor/consultant position requiring access to their facilities and systems. The report contained a reference to my non-res Florida permit. This was quite surprising to me. It didn't have anything about my Texas CHL.

[TEX]

In reality, and depdnding on what they wish to spend on a background check, they can get that informtion, they just can do it legally. This would rule out about 98% of possible employers getting that information. Of course, they could alsways just ask you and then fire you anywhere downb the line if you said "No' and the foundout later that you did.

[DoubleJ]

You guys are either nosy, dense, or both.

what was that rule we had about personal attacks??? I figured they were funnin' with you...


that's a fine lookin' steak, in yer signature, e-rawk.