Criminal History Check

[Commander Cody]

I have completed a CHL class. I am working on the application. Page 3 asks for criminal history. I was looking for specifics on previous arrests. Example: I know I was arrested about 30 years ago for DUI. I was not found guilty of DUI, but I was arrested. Also I know I had a juvinile scrape with the law. In trying to find specifics I went to the Galveston Police Dept. and obtained a report that states "No criminal arrest history was found". I then went to a web site CriminalBackgroundRecords.com and obtained a criminal history check for the state of Texas. It states "No Criminal Records Found". My delima is what do I do now? I don't want to send flase information to Austin.

[seamusTX]

Welcome to the forum.

If you put the best information that you can on your application, and do not supply documentation of the disposition of cases, DPS will tell you to get a letter from the county clerk saying that you were not convicted of any crime during that period.

You can move the process along by getting those letters A.S.A.P. (one from each county where you were arrested). It takes a while to get them, because the clerk's office has to dig through old archives.

Please keep in mind that you have to list only arrests that involved being photographed and fingerprinted. If the cops take a kid to the station and hold him for his parents to pick up, that kind of arrest does not have to be listed.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

DPS will send an investigator into the county clerk's office. If you fail to list an arrest they will probably deny your license.

Just out them down, attach copies like SeamusTX suggested and you will be fine. ;)

[Amistad]

I joined the forum just this morning and just have to reply to this thread...

My CHL arrived in the mail a couple of weeks ago and I have been learning how to carry. Things surely take on a different perspective when you are armed, and I am grateful to have now been granted the opportunity to be able to protect myself and those loved ones who may be around me.

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. So I listed the two arrests using approximate dates and locations. I discussed this with my wife and told her that even if I was denied a CHL because of this background check, I would feel much better about being honest regarding my past. Apparently there was no issue in the eyes of those who processed my application, for I now have the plastic in my wallet.

I'm happy to be a pistol-packin' Texan and I'm endeavoring to be a responsible citizen as I enjoy this new civil capacity.

Amistad
'honesty *really is* the best policy!'

[seamusTX]

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.

OTOH, you sign an affidavit saying that your application is true and complete. Knowingly failing to provide information is perjury.

- Jim

[Commander Cody]

How did this get from here to there? I looked me up on the internet today, just bored I guess, but my post is listed on the internet as general information. I did not know that what I discussed with you guys was information for the whole world.

[seamusTX]

I'm sorry for the surprise, but this is a public forum that is open to whole world. You can ask a moderator to hide this thread, but it will be cached in Google already.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

How did this get from here to there? I looked me up on the internet today, just bored I guess, but my post is listed on the internet as general information. I did not know that what I discussed with you guys was information for the whole world.

As Jim mentioned, various search engines run robots on websites all over the world. You can see the Googlebot on this board frequently and it's gathering information for the Google search engine.

I can delete this thread and I'm not sure how long it will be held in cache. Another alternative is for me to change your screen name to something else. Let me know if you'd like to do that.

Chas.

[Commander Cody]

Thank you for your reply,
I am not disurbed by the access to my information accessability, just suprised. The information was about 30+ years ago, not yesterday. No need to hide the thread. I would like to change my screen name to something a little less conspicuous though. Please let me know how to do so.
Thanks again,
Arthur

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thank you for your reply,
I am not disurbed by the access to my information accessability, just suprised. The information was about 30+ years ago, not yesterday. No need to hide the thread. I would like to change my screen name to something a little less conspicuous though. Please let me know how to do so.
Thanks again,
Arthur

Send me a PM giving me your new screen name and I'll change it for you. When I make the change, you'll get another activation email asking you to click on the link to reactivate your registration. All your posts will remain, just remember to use your new screen name and old password.

Chas.

[Commander Cody]

PM sent.

[thejtrain]

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?

[seamusTX]

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?

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.)

For an old case where you might never have received the documents, or lost or disposed of them, you have to obtain a copy from the clerk of the court where the hearing or trail was held.

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.

- Jim

[thejtrain]

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.

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]

The short answer is that GC §411.175 requires the information, and the entire CHL law would not have been passed (after heroic legislative effort) without every jot and tittle.

There is no perfect nationwide database of criminal offenses. A person could well have been convicted of a felony decades ago and have no record of it in databases that are currently available. Requiring an applicant to provide information about all arrests is also imperfect, but it allows for revocation and possible perjury charges if someone who is ineligible omits information from the application.

I agree that it is redundant, but it was a political necessity in 1995. As long as the need for a CHL system exists, it's probably better for the state to be cautious than to issue a CHL to an unqualified person who brings down the roof on all our heads through some illegal action.

- Jim