CHL Licensing Section of DPS Destroying the CHL

[smiller1939]

In my humble opinion, the Concealed Handgun Licensing Unit of the Texas Department of Public Safety is, in effect, killing the Texas CHL law by requiring all new applicant fingerprints be obtained from only one source: L1 Solutions. First this seems to me to be a major conflict between a private business and a governmental agency, particularly with the governmental agency promoting the private business on their web site and then secondly, by forcing the public to obtain their fingerprints from the only game in the state. To me at least, this appears to be a major impropriety. Now how is this killing the handgun law? If a new applicant lives in a major city the most they may have to travel to obtain the fingerprints is across the city, which in the case of Dallas, Houston, Austin and even San Antonio, may be a major drive, but the folks who live in smaller cities throughout Texas will need to travel to a major city to get their prints taken at one of the locations of L1 Solutions, which are very few and far between, and then probably will need to again return to the closest city where a class is held. With the law changing to allow Texas citizens the right to carry a weapon in their car without a license, what incentive is present to drive all over the city/state to obtain the fingerprints (from the only game in town) and then drive all over the city/state to take the class. There is none as DPS has done away with one stop shopping thereby making the obtaining of a concealed handgun license a more complex, costly and time consuming event. I’m not sure this is what Jerry Patterson and Suzanna Hupp had in mind.

Sorry, this probably should have been posted to General Texas CHL Discussion

[sugar land dave]

I literally only had to walk across the street from where I work, so I will disqualify myself from this discussion.

[WildBill]

I disagree that this is "Destroying the CHL", but that is the same that I think about the company who installs the red-light cameras. This happens all of the time when government agencies award contracts to private companies. If not properly controlled it can lead to graft and corruption.

Now that I think about it more, why can't you get your CHL fingerprints at a DPS DMV office. They already have the equipment and they are more convenient for most people.

[rmr1923]

i don't really see it as that big of an issue, as far as driving all over the state and whatnot. people travel from small towns to big cities at LEAST once a year for holiday shopping, why is it that big of a deal to do it once for your CHL? even if you had to do it again for the renewal, that's 5 years away.

[bigred90gt]

I must admit that I really liked the fact that when I left my CHL class, all I had to do was put a stamp on the envelope and mail it off. My class included photos, all documentation, and fingerprints. The only thing I had to add to the packet was a check.

[philip964]

I wish the digital fingerprints could be shared between agencies at the state or even the feds. I mean every time I get a new license or do a new fed project, I need finger prints. It would be nice to say "they are on file".

[Charles L. Cotton]

Overall, having digital fingerprints is a good idea, but it does cause a problem for people who live a long way from an L-1 location. DPS is aware of this problem and it needs to be addressed. There are a number of options and hopefully a workable solution will be implemented soon. In truth, fingerprints are no longer necessary and that requirement should be repealed. DPS can and does get the same background information in a computerized check they do on every applicant. There is far too little time to address it this session, but hopefully we can pass a bill in 2013 removing the fingerprint requirement.

The digital fingerprint isn't killing the CHL program. My experience is hardly representative if the entire State, but virtually every student we've had at PSC for the last 6 or 7 months have elected to get digital prints. In fact, we had only 1 or 2 each class who didn't and the LEO we had doing the prints wouldn't come for so few people. The Motorist Protection Act also has not negatively impacted the number of CHL's we have in Texas. (I wrote the bill and that was a very real concern.) However, the number of CHL's has increased by 172,815 since 2007 when the Motorist Protection Act passed (2010 = 461,724; 2007 = 288,909). Even the number of CHL Instructors in creased by 32% from 1639 in 2007 to 2164 in 2010. Passage of unlicensed car-carry was a very significant step toward expanding firearms rights and it hasn't come at the cost of CHLs.

I agree that not being able to offer a one-stop-shop is regrettable. If we can repeal the fingerprint requirement in 2013, we will be able to do so once again.

BTW, Suzanna Hupp wasn't in the Texas Legislature in 1995 when SB60 passed. This is a widespread misconception.

Chas.

[smiller1939]

Charles, I believe she worked with Jerry Patterson to write the law, didn't she?

[chasfm11]

There is clearly a balance between not wanting to delay CHL applications because of unusable fingerprints and forcing everyone to use a single vendor who is not capable of meeting the demand or reasonably handling the customers' needs in a timely manner. For those who may not remember, DPS was behind centralized emissions testing stations in the early '90s. It was clear at the outset of that program that the number of stations and their location was not going to handle the yearly testing requirements for all of the vehicles in Texas and it was later scrapped at great cost to the State.

It appears as though the L1 situation may be a similar setup, It would be a shame for it to throttle the growth in CHLs that we have been seeing. I understand that DPS is trying something new and I'm certainly not bashing them for doing that. I can only hope that they are listen to and will respond to concerns from CHL applicants.

[G Wagner]

One of the reason for the fingerprint requirement is to "verify" the person does not have a disqualifying arrest or criminal charge. If the name and social security was the only identification needed to access the person's criminal record, this can be defeated easily. The applicant can apply for a name change and with this, a new social security number.

If I recall, a few years ago, a Texas judge was granting people a change of name to avoid government "of interest" lists.

[RoyGBiv]

Now that I think about it more, why can't you get your CHL fingerprints at a DPS DMV office. They already have the equipment and they are more convenient for most people.

When I renewed my FL permit last year, I went to my local PD and they took my prints with the new digital system, then printed out cards for me to submit to FL. FL had no objection. I believe the PD charged me $10 for this....

If local LE has the equipment to do digital prints like L1, why not allow that?

[WildBill]

I must admit that I really liked the fact that when I left my CHL class, all I had to do was put a stamp on the envelope and mail it off. My class included photos, all documentation, and fingerprints. The only thing I had to add to the packet was a check.

That was one of my considerations when choosing which CHL course to take.

I understand the concern of the OP. Sometimes it appears that having to go to L1 for prints is causing the applicant to "jump through hoops." The same as states that are not "shall issue."

[mr surveyor]

as long as prints are required, I do think the digital prints are far superior. Are they accessable...no, not easily. In my neighborhood there is a "small business" that does the prints about 15 miles away from me, but very inconvenient most of the time. The owner/operator doesn't have the best attitude. One of my best buddies finally decided to send in his paper work after nearly losing credit for his nearly 2 year old CHL class, and got set up for his "appointment" for the prints a couple of weeks ago. Since he was only able to schedule a time for late afternoon at the 4:00 pm end of his work day, his "appointment" was scheduled for 4:30 pm..... by the time he found the place at the back of the small strip mall he was 3 minutes (THREE MINUTES) late. There was no other customers in the office and the "proprietor" refused to do the prints since my friend was 3 minutes (yes THREE) late...according to his clock anyway. Yep, when they are the ONLY game in town (and possibly not really CHL friendly as this guy may be the case), something just isn't right.

If it is a mandatory requirement then (my opinion) the governing authority should provide the means to do the necessary procedure. If they want to allow the applicant the option of using one of these private services, that's fine, but the local/county based DPS offices should be just as equipped to perform the mandatory procedure. They don't farm out the background check and investagtory work, and the prints are a part of that aren't they?

[A-R]

L1-FAST also does fingerprinting for nearly every other state-issued license/certification that requires fingerprinting. To my knowledge it has not killed off real estate agents, insurance salesmen, doctors/nurses etc. Heck L1-FAST has done my prints three times ... CHL, CHL instructor (don't understand why DPS needed it twice), and real estate license.

I'm new to instructing, but I greatly appreciate not messing around with fingerprints. I'm there to teach the content - not help students put together their applications. And I set my prices accordingly ... instructors who were charging $140+ for one-stop classes certainly were convenient, and folks loved them, and those instructors don't want to lose their total control of the process, and I understand all that. But some of these one-stop classes WERE taking class time to do prints, photos, notary, application review etc INSTEAD of teaching relevant content (I know because I took such classes in the past) ... and I think this is one possible reason why we all see folks fresh out of class come here to post and don't know basics about relevant CHL and deadly force law.

I realize this opinion may not be popular with some other instructors and I don't mean to single out anyone or throw one-stop classes as a whole under the bus (most are very good), but I stand by my comments and will dodge all incoming tomatoes

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I believe she worked with Jerry Patterson to write the law, didn't she?

No. She testified in a Senate Committee hearing and I think a House Committee hearing, but she wasn't involved in any other way. Her story was compelling because of the loss of her parents at Luby's so the media picked up on it. The people working on the bill were Senator Patterson, Rep. Bill Carter and his Legislative Director Roger Starkey, TSRA's "Doc" Brown and me.

Chas.