TexasCHLforum.com

Hoosier Daddy wrote:Lets say the same thing happened as described by the OP, with all the same rules we have now except the CHL is issued by the local sheriff instead of DPS.

The sheriff sends a letter. 90 days pass without a response. The application is terminated. A new fee is required to reapply. How is that any better than what happened with a centralized system?

It isn't a statutory requirement to terminate the process after 90 days, and it isn't a statutory requirement to send just one letter notifying. That is a bureaucratic rule.

There is nothing that says a local sheriff couldn't call you on the phone the next day and say "come pick your license up", or "hey, you forgot to include your proof of training".

Harris county, for example, has a little over 4 million people. If 2% had a CHL, that represents about $1.1 million in revenue. You'd be surprised how many sheriffs would be willing to be customer friendly for that kind of money. Especially if word got out that Harris county dragged its feet, but the Montgomery County Sheriff did a bang-up job, and Montgomery County started getting all that revenue from Harris county residents. Give people the choice for local control.

Shoot Straight wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I think you're MUCH better off with a centralized system, even if that system is not perfect.

I agree. Think of all the people who can't get a Form 4 signed by their local CLEO.

There is no reason you couldn't write a state law that says all sheriffs "shall issue" a Form 4 if the applicant satisfies certain criteria.

sjfcontrol wrote:but that there would be certain Sheriffs who do not believe that "civilians" should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, and therefore subvert the system. Perhaps LONG waits for approvals. Lost applications, etc.

First, the very reason to have a "shall issue" state is to stop the kinds of shenanigans you are talking about.

Other states handle that by legislating the sheriff has to either issue the license or deny it for cause within 45 days. On day 46, you can go before a judge and get a writ of mandamus forcing the sheriff to issue the license immediately or face contempt of court. Legal costs are reimbursable.

texasjeep44 wrote:I you think that one department is too bureacratic to get anything done, do you really want it handled by each sheriff?

If you are saying that one sheriff applies their standards for license eligibility and another sheriff applies different standards, no that is not what I am saying. You would still have state-wide standards as set by the state legislature -- the essential point of a "shall-issue" system.

Are there going to be variations in how effective one county is versus another? Absolutely, that is the essence of local control. However, if someone does not like the way it is handled in their county, it is a lot easier to get the attention of a local elected official than it is to get the attention of some faceless bureaucrat in Austin.

I've been familiar with issuance by local sheriffs for years, and I've never heard "personal grievances" being an issue. I am not saying it is impossible, just statistically meaningless. Meanwhile, the upside in good counties is great customer service. I know other states that also have to go through criminal background checks where some counties routinely issue a license in one business day.

inertiajason wrote:I am of the belief that I shouldn't have to hunt someone down and leave at least 5 voice mails where I never received a call back and then 3 more phone calls before I was finally able to get a hold of the person that my application was assigned to. I understand that they don't hold your hand through the process but If someone is paying their $140 dollars shouldn't they receive a little more attention that just one letter before terminating an application?

Government bureaucracy at its worst -- insulated, arrogant, and no sense whatsoever of the meaning of "customer".

That is why I support having CHL's issued at the county sheriff level. Control at the local government level with an elected official accountable to voters can and should be more responsive than an insulated agency in Austin.