Error in DPS statistics?

[jbarn]

A Level III Texas Security Officer would have a license to carry, but not a CHL.

Yeah, but I don't believe that 46.035 applies to the them without a CHL. 46.035 specifically references Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code which is only for CHL's. And 46.035(e) references security officers, but says 'A license holder..', so only applies to :

(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

You are correct, but the statistical summary doesn't list the section of the law they were convicted. Unless I missed it. When you are summarizing data you sometimes add similar things together.
In fact I did that today while working on some excel files.

At any rate, I am still waiting for the truth.

A security officer who also holds a CHL cannot carry concealed while on duty. I believe that us that 46.035(3) references. It could be possible for a guard to be caught on duty with a concealed handgun and be charged with a violation of 46.035.

[WildBill]

A Level III Texas Security Officer would have a license to carry, but not a CHL.

Yeah, but I don't believe that 46.035 applies to the them without a CHL. 46.035 specifically references Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code which is only for CHL's. And 46.035(e) references security officers, but says 'A license holder..', so only applies to :

(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

You are correct, but the statistical summary doesn't list the section of the law they were convicted. Unless I missed it. When you are summarizing data you sometimes add similar things together.
In fact I did that today while working on some excel files.

At any rate, I am still waiting for the truth.

A security officer who also holds a CHL cannot carry concealed while on duty. I believe that us that 46.035(3) references. It could be possible for a guard to be caught on duty with a concealed handgun and be charged with a violation of 46.035.

So what is the source of the discrepancy pointed out by the OP?

[jbarn]

It could be Out of State LEOS carrying under LEOSA. They carry under the CHL laws when out of state but most do not have their state's version of a CHL.

It's a data error or it's got to be something else. That's the best I've heard so far!

I just didn't think there would be that many arrests of out of state LEOs.

It is not out of state LEO's.

You seem to know everything that it isn't.

Don't keep us in suspense.

What is it?

The only way I can see a NON CHL holder being convicted of 46.035 would be an out of state person with an out of state license. The column on the form is, I believe, for Texas CHL holders only. A person out of state with an out of state license is not the holder of a Texas CHL; therefore, a conviction under 46.035 cannot go under the CHL column.

Make sense?

I also say it is not out of state LEOs because even before LEOSA, out of state LEO's were not messed with in Texas for carrying.

[WildBill]

It could be Out of State LEOS carrying under LEOSA. They carry under the CHL laws when out of state but most do not have their state's version of a CHL.

It's a data error or it's got to be something else. That's the best I've heard so far!

I just didn't think there would be that many arrests of out of state LEOs.

It is not out of state LEO's.

You seem to know everything that it isn't.

Don't keep us in suspense.

What is it?

The only way I can see a NON CHL holder being convicted of 46.035 would be an out of state person with an out of state license. The column on the form is, I believe, for Texas CHL holders only. A person out of state with an out of state license is not the holder of a Texas CHL; therefore, a conviction under 46.035 cannot go under the CHL column.

Make sense?

I also say it is not out of state LEOs because even before LEOSA, out of state LEO's were not messed with in Texas for carrying.

Yeah, it makes sense. Meanwhile back on the Page 1, Post 6.

Maybe only 10 of those had a Texas CHL, the other 21 were out of state?

Just a wild guess.

[G.A. Heath]

It could be Out of State LEOS carrying under LEOSA. They carry under the CHL laws when out of state but most do not have their state's version of a CHL.

It's a data error or it's got to be something else. That's the best I've heard so far!

I just didn't think there would be that many arrests of out of state LEOs.

It is not out of state LEO's.

You seem to know everything that it isn't.

Don't keep us in suspense.

What is it?

The only way I can see a NON CHL holder being convicted of 46.035 would be an out of state person with an out of state license. The column on the form is, I believe, for Texas CHL holders only. A person out of state with an out of state license is not the holder of a Texas CHL; therefore, a conviction under 46.035 cannot go under the CHL column.

Make sense?

I also say it is not out of state LEOs because even before LEOSA, out of state LEO's were not messed with in Texas for carrying.

Yeah, it makes sense. Meanwhile back on the Page 1, Post 6.

Maybe only 10 of those had a Texas CHL, the other 21 were out of state?

Just a wild guess.

The second quote was in reference to out of state CHL equivalents, my post is about out of state LEOSA Carry, there is a notable difference between the two,.

[srothstein]

I don't think we will ever know for sure what these cases are, and I don't think DPS would be able to explain it either. In this case, DPS is not creatign the data, just collecting it. When a court reports a conviction and a subject, they take whatever the court reported as the conviction crime and check if the person has a CHL. DPS would not have the authority to tell a court that a person did not have a CHL so the crime report was invalid.

[txinstructor]

Maybe the license was revoked before they were convicted of unlawful carry....by the time they were convicted of the unlawful carry they were no longer CHL holders.

[jbarn]

Maybe the license was revoked before they were convicted of unlawful carry....by the time they were convicted of the unlawful carry they were no longer CHL holders.

A license cannot be revoked for an offense until there is a conviction.

[txinstructor]

Maybe the license was revoked before they were convicted of unlawful carry....by the time they were convicted of the unlawful carry they were no longer CHL holders.

A license cannot be revoked for an offense until there is a conviction.

First: they can be arrested, tried, and convicted of an unrelated crime before going to trial for the unlawful carry. That conviction makes them ineligible to have a CHL and it can be revoked, then they go to trial for the unlawful carry but they are no longer CHL holders.

Second: There are also several instances where it can be revoked without a conviction. The first that comes to mind is if they hare placed under a protective order or restraining order affecting the spousal relationship. Another one is if they become ineligible to purchase a handgun under federal or state law. There are several reasons you might not be qualified to purchase a handgun that have nothing to do with being convicted of a crime - being under indictment for a felony (not convicted, just under indictment), being a fugitive from justice, a dishonorable discharge...

Heck, they can revoke it for changing addresses without notifying them if you do it often enough.

[jbarn]

Maybe the license was revoked before they were convicted of unlawful carry....by the time they were convicted of the unlawful carry they were no longer CHL holders.

A license cannot be revoked for an offense until there is a conviction.

First: they can be arrested, tried, and convicted of an unrelated crime before going to trial for the unlawful carry. That conviction makes them ineligible to have a CHL and it can be revoked, then they go to trial for the unlawful carry but they are no longer CHL holders.

I would say that's a stretch, but OK. Since they are CHL holders at the time of the offense I believe they would be listed in the CHL column.

Second: There are also several instances where it can be revoked without a conviction. The first that comes to mind is if they hare placed under a protective order or restraining order affecting the spousal relationship. Another one is if they become ineligible to purchase a handgun under federal or state law. There are several reasons you might not be qualified to purchase a handgun that have nothing to do with being convicted of a crime - being under indictment for a felony (not convicted, just under indictment), being a fugitive from justice, a dishonorable discharge...

Heck, they can revoke it for changing addresses without notifying them if you do it often enough.

Yes, I am well aware of those, but I don't see how any of those would result in the topic of this thread.

[baron]

What is Unlawful carrying of weapon, 12 convictions by CHler. Were they convicted by carrying an RPG?

NFA weapons are under a different law. Maybe they were carrying a handgun but not carrying their license.

46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun