TexasCHLforum.com

texasmr2 wrote:Man am I glad I found this thread because I have question's before I send my application in.

1. I was arrested, well detained according to HPD, twice for traffic ticket's and I was told by a DPS supervisor dont worry about those because they are very minor. Is this true and it was so long ago I cannot remember if I was finger printed or not?

2. Back in '97-'98 I was stopped for a traffic violation but was arrested for a bounced check that had gone into warrant. I was told by that DPS supervisor that I must list that on my CHL application. Now here is the deal I just had the Harris County District Clerk's office run a criminal history report dating all the way back to 1976 and the only thing that is on their record's is another bounced check, that went into warrant in '06 from '04, but full restitution has been made and I was NOT arrested for it.

I have my Harris County disposition record to send in as well as the certified District Clerk's documentation so what should I list if anything on my CHL application??

Thank's in advance,
Gregg

Usually the best advice is to list absolutely everything you can think of. In a shall-issue state like our beloved Texas, they can't make judgment calls about whether or not you should get a CHL, based on what's on your record. If you have something on your record that, by law, prohibits you from getting one, they WILL find it and WILL deny you whether you list it or not. If you only have things on your record that, by law, CANNOT prohibit you from getting one, they WILL approve you provided you're honest on your form (especially the part where you sign @ the end that says, "to the best of my knowledge, the preceding is 100% true and accurate, blah blah blah"). It's probably not a good idea to test that by leaving something off the application, then signing the "best of my knowledge" part.

Regarding #1 above, my advice would be to list as much detail as you can remember (down to month/year & jurisdiction where the arrest/detention took place), and the DPS will do what they can to fill in the blanks with their background-check capabilities. If they can't find anything they'll either ignore it or contact you to try to get more details - good news for you in either case. The bad news would be if you DIDN'T list something and it popped up in their search and leaves them wondering why you didn't mention it. I certainly can't say 100% that they would deny you in that situation, but leaving it off and then signing the affadavit would presumably give them the authority under the law to deny you.

JT

Makes pretty good sense from a cover yourself practical perspective. Thanks for the historical insight as well Jim - if this kind of thing was the cost of getting shall-issue passed, I'll gladly pay it every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And now, I'm off for home and pizza & beer with the wife (her idea even!)

seamusTX wrote:They want a certified copy of the disposition of the case. With a guilty plea, the judge signs a sentencing order. That would satisfy DPS. (I'm not sure exactly what that document is called in Texas and every other state.)

Thanks for that clarification Jim.

seamusTX wrote:They aren't looking for you to prove that you were arrested. They are looking for you to prove that you were not convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, and that your conviction was more than five years ago.

Yeah, but that's the part that doesn't make much sense to me - just seems like double effort. (And I certainly don't want to come across like a troll or anything, I've just got a fairly strong small-l libertarian streak so when I see the .gov making ill-advised requirements of people and/or wasting money, it makes me wonder why)

Assuming that:

• There's a finite list of offenses that would disqualify an applicant
• A shall-issue state IS PROHIBITED FROM disqualifing an applicant for the conviction of any offense not on the above list
• A state will conduct a nationwide criminal background check on the applicant, which will net them ALL historical offenses anyway, whether there's a match to the proscribed list or not

What value does it add to the process for the applicant to:

• Provide documentation of the disposition of an offense NOT on the proscribed list
• Or to even be required to disclose any and all such offenses in the first place, when:
[list]
• they won't limit the applicant's eligibility for a CHL
• if the applicant has volunteered it in the first place, chances are they're not making it up

[/list]
While an applicant can prove that whatever convictions he does have are NOT on the proscribed list, he cannot prove that he's never been convicted of something on the proscribed list (can't prove a negative) - which is why the state runs its own check. Sorry if this is nit-picking taken to a horrendous degree, but sometimes it's hard for me to let something go once it's grabbed my attention! I certainly realize we're all on the same team here!

Of course the law is The Law, and every applicant should follow it to the letter - it just seems unnecessary and/or wasteful to require documentation from the applicant for things that 1) they've already admitted to, 2) might not matter in the first place, and 3) the state will get all pertinent details of anyway through their own background check.

seamusTX wrote:

Amistad wrote:When I filled out that criminal history section, I initially thought about just leaving it blank. However, there were a couple of incidents where I was arrested (one of them where I was photographed and fingerprinted) from way back in the early 60's when I was a teenager. I knew that leaving the page blank would be dishonest.

Congratulations and welcome to the forum.

AFAICT, DPS gives applicants the benefit of the doubt. Even if someone was convicted of a misdemeanor decades ago, it would not be a disqualification now. And they recognize that records are lost or disposed of.

I just completed the online application Tuesday (taking the course later this month), and the DPS very clearly stated during the criminal history section that an applicant should list absolutely everything, and that an application would in no way be denied for an offense that did not explicitly violate the section of TX's CHL law that governs eligibility. Ah, the wondrousness of a shall-issue state! Much different from the "I'm a sheriff and I can issue permits to friends and campaign contributors as I see fit, but deny them to all others just 'cause I feel like it" attitude of those may-issue states like the one I came from - which will tactically remain nameless in the interests of trying to forget I'm from there. Like the slogan says, "I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could!"

I do have a question to go along with this thread, though. Let's say for example that Applicant A was not only arrested for non-violent misdemeanor offense B 7 or 8 years ago, and in a state that wasn't Texas, but ended up pleading guilty, receiving probation, and has subsequently been clean as a whistle ever since. When Applicant A volunteers that information on his CHL application, what kind of documentation does DPS expect to see for that? Do they really need to see proof that, yes, Applicant A does indeed have the criminal record he himself admitted to? I could see where DPS would want to run a full check to make sure there's nothing else that Applicant A neglected to mention, but is proof of something he's already admitted to really expected?