TexasCHLforum.com

I had a student contact me this morning to inform me that he called the State to check on the status of his application and they had informed him that it had been terminated due to no response. They informed him that they sent him a letter that he never received and since they didn't get a response from him within 90 days of them sending the letter that they terminated his application.

Apparently he forgot to include the CHL-6 Photo Holder / Signature portion with his application.

I had a similar situation happen when I applied for my CHL they claimed they sent me a letter which I never received and my application was delayed for months... Luckily for me it was never terminated but I had to make 8 phone calls and left numerous voice mail messages before I could finally reach the person who was assigned to my application only to learn they needed additional information about something on my background check. Once I sent the additional information in then everything was processed rather quickly.

Has anyone else run into any similar scenarios? Is that the only effort the state makes is to just send one letter? Does this mean he has to resubmit his application fee again? Does the state not even make an effort to call before forfeiting your application fee?

I was very clear on what needed to be sent in but I do feel bad for the guy as mistakes do happen and for him to lose his application fee simply because he didn't receive a single letter that was sent seems somewhat unfair I would like to think they would make more of an effort before just writing off someones application. Any thoughts comments suggestions?


-Jason

inertiajason wrote:I was very clear on what needed to be sent in but I do feel bad for the guy as mistakes do happen and for him to lose his application fee simply because he didn't receive a single letter that was sent seems somewhat unfair I would like to think they would make more of an effort before just writing off someones application. Any thoughts comments suggestions? -Jason

I have never heard of this happening, but apparently it does. I would send an old fashioned letter to the DPS person who is in charge of the CHL program. I don't know who that is, but I am sure one of the other instructors has the name if you do not.

I hope your student can get his application reinstated, but it is a very good object lesson for future classes. The State is not in the business of holding our hands through this process. I know that the envelopes they use are pretty nondescript, so it is very likely that the notice just got overlooked, or was mistaken for mass-mailed junk.

KC5AV wrote:I hope your student can get his application reinstated, but it is a very good object lesson for future classes. The State is not in the business of holding our hands through this process. I know that the envelopes they use are pretty nondescript, so it is very likely that the notice just got overlooked, or was mistaken for mass-mailed junk.

I wonder why you're so quick to blame the student? Would seem just as likely that the letter was mis-directed, and never arrived. It also could have been a DPS problem, and the letter never actually got sent.

sjfcontrol wrote:

KC5AV wrote:I hope your student can get his application reinstated, but it is a very good object lesson for future classes. The State is not in the business of holding our hands through this process. I know that the envelopes they use are pretty nondescript, so it is very likely that the notice just got overlooked, or was mistaken for mass-mailed junk.

I wonder why you're so quick to blame the student? Would seem just as likely that the letter was mis-directed, and never arrived. It also could have been a DPS problem, and the letter never actually got sent.

I suppose anything is possible.

Like I said a similar thing happened to me but they didn't terminate my application. I don't know how much information the "check the status of your application" offers now but back then it just stated processing application and that was it.

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?

inertiajason wrote:Like I said a similar thing happened to me but they didn't terminate my application. I don't know how much information the "check the status of your application" offers now but back then it just stated processing application and that was it.

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?

You're correct on all points. I don't know how many people are in the CHL division, but they probably don't have enough manpower to pay that kind of attention to every problem case that comes up. It would be nice if they did.

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.

KC5AV wrote:You're correct on all points. I don't know how many people are in the CHL division, but they probably don't have enough manpower to pay that kind of attention to every problem case that comes up. It would be nice if they did.

Turnaround time for most applicants has decreased significantly in the past few years. Would the average applicant be willing to wait longer (or pay more) so a few special applicants can get extra attention?

I wonder why you're so quick to blame the student?

/shrug

Given the ability to check your application status on the DPS web site, or simply call DPS on the phone, what possible excuse could an adult have for being unaware of, and failing to correct, any potential issues?

While an individual "shouldn't" have to nag an agency to do their job, there comes a point where we all have to take the initiative to MAKE them do their job if required. I did, as did many of our fellow forum members.

Jumping Frog wrote: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.

I you think that one department is too bureacratic to get anything done, do you really want it handled by each sheriff? That might mean that depending on where you live you do things one way, and someone the next county over would do things another way.

If the local sheriff made personel changes it might mean long delays until the new person handling paperwork got up to speed on the process. It might mean if you happen to piss someone off locally your application might be misplaced, repeatedly. At least the way it is your simply a number along with thousands of other numbers. Personal greivances are highly unlikely with the current system.

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.

Jumping Frog wrote:

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.

I don't think the problem is so much that the requirements would be different (if specified by the state), 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. And currently there are less than 2% of the population that have CHLs, so an otherwise popular Sheriff might figure the number of votes he'd lose due to unhappy CHL applicants would not affect his re-election. In fact, might actually help his re-election if he ran on a platform of "Protecting the public by preventing people from having concealed handguns in public areas". I think you're MUCH better off with a centralized system, even if that system is not perfect.

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.

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.