TexasCHLforum.com

mr surveyor wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here's an interesting and scary take on what's going on.

http://allenbwest.com/2013/11/every-d-c ... -registry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The noose keeps getting tighter and tighter, and not just in the liberal utopias. Now, in Texas, in order to keep your PE license, you have to be fingerprinted and go through a separate background check. Other checks, like for CHL, don't count. We're all criminals now, or soon will be.

I have to ask where and when this new background check mandate started for P.E.'s? I'm not a PE, personally, but as a Professional Land Surveyor I do partner with a few PE's. I've asked around a bit since this was posted and none of the PE's I work with have any knowledge of this, and one today said he had just renewed his license in the last month. He's curious to know about this new mandate. For what it's worth, none of us do any DoD or other projects that may require security clearance. Could that be where this BG check requirement comes in?

Given the silly license fees and other "business fees" the state is milking us surveyors out of now, I don't doubt one bit what you state may be true for all of us pretty soon.


JD

It doesn't apply to anyone renewing a license in 2013.....but applies beginning in 2014. From the email I got from the TBPE:

As you are aware from previous correspondence from the Board, the 83rd Texas Legislature (2013 session) made a change to the Texas Engineering Practice Act that requires a one-time Criminal History Record Check (CHRC) for all new license applications and renewals of Active licenses after January 1, 2014. We have been working hard to implement the recent legislative requirement and we are now ready to start.

n5wd wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Professional Engineer license. So essentially, you have to be fingerprinted and checked to work if your employer or employment requires a PE. Those pesky engineers, just one crime wave after another ---so something had to be done.

Join the parade. Almost any profession that is regulated has gone the photograph/fingerprint/background check routine: nurses (RN's) have to do it. Doctors have to do it. Teachers have to do it. CPA's might have to do it... They're not just picking on professional engineers, but if you feel it's wrong so much that you're willing to give up your license...

Is it right to do? I think the benefits outweigh the hassles the same way I did when I applied for my CHL.

Amazing how I've been an engineer for 30 years and it has only been found necessary today. But there are some differences between the professions you describe. My guess is that the Constitution destroying war on some drugs is the reason doctors and nurses have to do it....because they have access to "some drugs." Teachers are the victims of child abuse hysteria. It's just authoritarianism in any case, and goes against any reasonable notion of liberty.

I don't have access to drugs and don't work around children. I made the decision to be fingerprinted when I got my CHL.....the difference being it was MY choice to make --being able to work and eat wasn't an issue. I had also been fingerprinted when I entered the military....again, I didn't have to join the military, it was my choice. My other objection: for my CHL I was fingerprinted by a police officer and my prints went to law enforcement. Otherwise, the military has my prints. In this case though, they will be in the custody of a private company, and I have very little trust that this personal info won't be abused in some fashion. In other words, despite my overall distrust of government, I have more trust in the DPS, the FBI, and the military not to abuse my personal data than I do some private company.

suthdj wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here's an interesting and scary take on what's going on.

http://allenbwest.com/2013/11/every-d-c ... -registry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The noose keeps getting tighter and tighter, and not just in the liberal utopias. Now, in Texas, in order to keep your PE license, you have to be fingerprinted and go through a separate background check. Other checks, like for CHL, don't count. We're all criminals now, or soon will be.

PE?

Professional Engineer license. So essentially, you have to be fingerprinted and checked to work if your employer or employment requires a PE. Those pesky engineers, just one crime wave after another ---so something had to be done. My company already does background checks on employees, but now I have to get government approval to work here. If I could afford to retire I'd give up the license, and I'm seriously considering it anyway. Just a matter of time before anyone without a national ID and government approval can't work at any job. No fly list, then no gun list, then no work list. But hey, for illegals (sorry, undocumented Democrats), no ID to vote.

mojo84 wrote:Here's an interesting and scary take on what's going on.

http://allenbwest.com/2013/11/every-d-c ... -registry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The noose keeps getting tighter and tighter, and not just in the liberal utopias. Now, in Texas, in order to keep your PE license, you have to be fingerprinted and go through a separate background check. Other checks, like for CHL, don't count. We're all criminals now, or soon will be.

Think about it in conjunction with this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/2849165/

Obama, who has proposed changes to the nation's gun and mental illness laws, noted that shootings in other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom led to changes in their gun laws. "What's different in America," he said, "is it's easy to get your hands on a gun -- and a lot of us know this."

This got by me at the time. Only became aware of the Australia/UK nudge when I got my latest American Rifleman. The Senate rule change plus the UK/Australia call out is the scariest thing I've seen all year.

They're very slowly floating the trial balloons. Today I started reading gun control mentioned in this context for the first time --in a NYT editorial.