WARNING: DPS Not Sending Renewal Packets

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have been made aware of a minister who was arrested during a traffic stop in or around Georgetown Texas and was ultimately charged with UCW. As the minister was about to hand his TDL and CHL to the officer, he noticed that the CHL had expired 26 days earlier and he advised the officer. He stated he never received a renewal packet or a notice of expiration.

I was skeptical when I first learned of this incident as it has been my experience that DPS sent my renewal packet about six months before my two expiration dates. My wife and sons got theirs early as well. Unfortunately, investigation has revealed that DPS is violating the law by not sending renewal applications (packets) to CHL holders at least 60 days prior to renewal. This express requirement is found in Texas Gov’t Code §411.185(b). http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes ... 411.185.00

A DPS worker has stated that they now send only a card or letter with both an 800 number and the DPS web site address where a CHL holder must request the renewal application. She also stated that CHL Instructors are being taught that this is the proper renewal procedure and that it has been in use ever since the on-line renewal feature was added to the DPS web site.

This procedure is troublesome for several reasons. First, it violates the law! More importantly, innocent people are going to inadvertently violate Penal Code §46.02 by letting their CHL expire. Many of those who have had CHL’s long enough to go through the renewal process the proper way are undoubtedly waiting for the full renewal packet to arrive in the mail. Also, it’s much easier to miss a small card or letter in the mail, if it even gets to you, than it is to miss the rather large renewal packet. Further, people are less likely to set a large packet aside and forget about it than a small card or letter. This unlawful procedure may be easier and cheaper for DPS, but it can reek havoc on unsuspecting CHL holders.

Everyone needs to be aware of this new and unlawful DPS procedure and help warn your CHL friends and family as well. I’m interested to hear from some CHL Instructors as to what you have been taught by DPS and what your students’ experience has been regarding renewal packets.

Regards,
Chas.

[ElGato]

Charles, I was told that they would be sent a letter with the phone # and a pin # and would have to use one or the other to request their application. I had no idea that the state was supposed to send the packet, I am sure that the fact that they don't causes less renewals and more people to let theirs expire temporarily.
Tomcat

[Kalrog]

I haven't had my CHL long enough to go through the "proper" process, but it sure seems like this should be an open and shut case against DPS and that thus guy in Georgetown could be a good candidate with standing to take it up. I sure hate to see him lose his CHL rights based on a 26 day lapse.

And it sure seems harsh on the side of the LEO to actually charge him with UCW based on the facts as presented here. Especially a supposedly upstanding member of the comunity such as ministers usually are.

[SRVA]

Charles, Donna recently received the card and had to call DPS to request the packet. It took a long time for the packet to arrive, getting to the house the day of her evening class. The process worked exactly as you described it in your post.

[John]

Do you have to wait for the card and pin? Mine expires next Apirl and i was considering taking the CHL course in October of this year with a friend. Is that too early?

[jimlongley]

That's what my wife and I got, a card each, with the 800# and web URL. If I had known about the law I think I would have raised a stink all the way back then.

It seems to me that "Not later than the 60th day before
the expiration date of the license, the department shall mail to
each license holder a written notice of the expiration of the
license and a renewal form." is pretty clear.

Another one that bothers me is "(c) The department shall renew the license of a license holder who meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all
the renewal materials. Not later than the 45th day after receipt of the renewal materials, the department shall issue the renewal or notify the license holder in writing that the renewal application was denied."

My wife's and mine took 62 days door to door, and 60 from the return receipt.

Why is DPS routinely violating the law? Why are they getting away with it? And who do we call to enforce the law on DPS?

[mschadt]

Excuse me if my thinking is flawed but it wouldn't have anything to do with this: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... .php?t=876 Would it?

Would the DPS be bound my Administrative Code and the rest of us mortals bound by the Penal Code.

None the less it would seem there is a dubble standard ineffect as to who must follow the law and who must ignore it.

[Kyle Brown]

Charles, I believe that I received the DPS Instructor update newsletter in March of 2004. If I am not mistaken, that newsletter detailed the renewal process and stated renewal candidates would receive a postcard instructing them to order the renewal packet via phone or the net. In fact, that process was in place when I renewed my CHL in March 2004. I have instructed those inquiring about renewal accordingly since March 2004.

Hope this helps.

[Renegade]

My CHL expires in December. This past June (6 months prior to Expiration), I received from DPS a "written notice of the expiration of the license and a renewal form.", as required under §411.185(b).

I did not fill the form out, chose to use the on-line form, paid on-line, and a few weeks later got the "full packet". Have taken the course, and mailed the whole thing out.

Seems to me they are meeting the requirement of the law since they did provide "written notice of the expiration of the license and a renewal form." (actually I got two notices since I did not act right away).

EDITED to fix incorrect sequence of events.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks Kyle, that helps me put the timing in perspective.

I have great respect for DPS as an agency and I've not had a single bad experience with a DPS Trooper. I wish DPS's attitude toward the CHL statute was up to its general reputation. Gross delays in processing new and renewal applications and bogas "bad fingerprint cards" to buy time are bad enough. Simply choosing not to send applications in direct violation of 411.185(b) is especially irritating, in view of the potential for honest CHL's to make the same mistake as did the Georgetown minister. I sure hope the DA drops the charges.

Regards,
Chas.

[txinvestigator]

Maybe someone needs to call the Colonel.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Seems to me they are meeting the requirement of the law since they did provide "written notice of the expiration of the license and a renewal form."

Renegade:

I don't think DPS is meeting the requirements of 411.185(b). They are not sending a "renewal form," they are sending a notice for you to request a renewal form. The fact that they include in the title the terms "renewal form" makes me even more convinced they know this does not meet the statute.

Look at the full text of 411.185(b):

(b) The director by rule shall adopt a renewal application form requiring an update of the information on the original completed application. The director by rule shall set the renewal fee in an amount that is sufficient to cover the actual cost to the department to renew a license. Not later than the 60th day before the expiration date of the license, the department shall mail to each license holder a written notice of the expiration of the license and a renewal form.

It's clear the "renewal form" required is a document sufficient to meet the requirement to renew the license. As such, it must have a place to "update [the] information on the original completed application." The DPS notice of expiration does not meet this requirement, regardless of the title it bears. The fact that they sent the entire renewal packet for about 8 years before changing to this new procedure shows they know what must be provided.

In spite of CHL being a cash cow for DPS, they view it as a burden, especially in light of the time constraints they routinely ignore. Not sending full renewal packets a/k/a "renewal forms" is both easier for DPS and it increases the chance people will let their CHL's expire.

Regards,
Chas.

[Renegade]

I will agree they are not sending "everything you need" in order to renew, which to me is the spirit of the law.

But I do think they a doing a good job of notifying people of their upcoming renewals, as I got 2 notices - at 6 months and 5 months prior.

[KBCraig]

Look at the full text of 411.185(b):

(b) ( . . . ) The director by rule shall set the renewal fee in an amount that is sufficient to cover the actual cost to the department to renew a license. ( . . . )

In spite of CHL being a cash cow for DPS, they view it as a burden

This is something I've long suspected, and I have argued against the fees as excessive in light of actual expense incurred, and discriminatory against the poor. Heck, I'm not poor, but I don't have a CHL, because the exhorbitant fees rile me! (I carry under LEOSA, and I bypass NICS for most of my gun purchases because of my C&R FFL, so the CHL wouldn't give me much advantage.)

But anyway... has there been a study of the I:E ratio of the CHL system? The initial license fee might reflect actual cost, but I don't see more than an hour of labor --perhaps two, tops-- being spent processing a renewal. Coincidental expenditures (paper, new license, postage) are de minimis.

I believe the license fees are something that should be looked at strongly in the next session of the Leg.

Kevin

[wrt45]

It seems to me that "Not later than the 60th day before
the expiration date of the license, the department shall mail to
each license holder a written notice of the expiration of the
license and a renewal form." is pretty clear.

Another one that bothers me is "(c) The department shall renew the license of a license holder who meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all
the renewal materials. Not later than the 45th day after receipt of the renewal materials, the department shall issue the renewal or notify the license holder in writing that the renewal application was denied."

My wife's and mine took 62 days door to door, and 60 from the return receipt.

Why is DPS routinely violating the law? Why are they getting away with it? And who do we call to enforce the law on DPS?

My renewal is currently at 77 days. Since Monday the web site says "license issued" but I haven't seen the license yet. There was no problem with my instructor's renewal, which came at the same time, and was returned to DPS at the same time.

I asked Marian Stahl at the Instructor's School last week how her office was handling the problem regarding timely applications. Her answer was simple: "We're running behind, please be patient." I pushed a little and observed that the law didn't allow for "running behind" to which she responded, "Would you like us to just deny the applications and make you re-apply?" I asked her on what legal basis could they just deny a license application or a renewal, since the law didn't seem to allow it unless there was a specific issue pending investigation. Her response: "Well, that's what we'll just have to do."

I didn't pursue the issue with her in that context, but it seems to me that the DPS office is not what it should be. Perhaps its beyond the time when legislative oversight needs to be suggested.