TexasCHLforum.com

I want to point out a few issues that perhaps we can learn from.

Ignoring the domestic violence and sexual assault convictions (which are of course heinous), we see the following two-digit conviction rates of CHL holders:

ASSAULT CAUSES BODILY INJ 16
DEADLY CONDUCT 15

These are exactly the offenses that a CHL holder would be charged with for pointing a weapon or shooting without justification not resulting in a fatality.

I don't know the story behind any of these incidents.

This number is still a tiny percentage, 0.004% of Texas licensees. However, the hypothetical scenarios that are discussed here often wander into this territory.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Interestingly, I've heard that US Attorneys are rarely interested in prosecuting federal misdemeanors...like Post Office carry to name one...

I've noticed that. You never hear of someone being convicted of a federal misdemeanor.

No one has ever been prosecuted for carrying a weapon in a post office unless the person committed a more serious crime like aggravated assault or robbery. The same goes for the "gun free school zone" law as renewed in 1995 or whenever that was.

However, law enforcement in post offices and other federal facilities that are open to the public frequently is turned over to local police and prosecuted in state courts. In many cases this would be some form of unlawful weapon possession. You would never hear of the incident as a federal offense.

Federal law would have to be enforced by postal inspectors or postal police, both of which are not all that numerous. Postal inspectors mostly go after mail fraud cases. I have seen postal police once in my life. I didn't know they existed until 2008.

- Jim

Wasn't there one Arizona bounty hunter who was convicted and served (federal < 1year) time for tax evasion? Now he's back and carrying as it was a misdemeanor. In Texas carry by a CHL in a Post Office would not be state crime, though it is arguably a federal misdemeanor. I wouldn't recommend carrying in a Post Office "facility", especially if it is posted in accordance with 18 USC 930, though I'm not completely convinced that the law applies...not because of the "other lawful purposes", but because of the definition of federal "facility".

I don't intend to create a new Post Office thread...I'm just agreeing with you that federal misdemeanors are rarely prosecuted.

-Scott

Wasn't there one Arizona bounty hunter who was convicted and served (federal < 1year) time for tax evasion?

I dunno.

I just want to point out that a person has to go to great lengths to be convicted of criminal tax evasion.

The IRS does not want to put too many people in jail. Prisoners cost the government money for their upkeep. The IRS wants to dig out their pound of flesh from people who have assets and continue to earn income.

Getting a criminal conviction for tax evasion pretty much requires failing to file or lying on a tax return, and failing to cooperate with the less painful alternatives such as civil settlement.

- Jim

WRT to how the CHL numbers are generated:

The DPS must monitor those CHL holders who are arrested/convicted. I assume this is done by local jurisdictions notifying the DPS that they have arrested a CHL holder, and subsequently whether or not he was convicted. The DPS should have records on this that they use to compile the numbers. So an Open Records Request might reveal the stories behind the numbers. Unless somehow it is shielded by the confidentiality of CHL records (which would be ironic).

DPS handles many types of licenses, and most if not all of them can be revoked if the license holder is convicted of a crime.

Therefore it would make sense to have a uniform method for local and state courts to report convictions to DPS. Given enough data (name, address, driver license number) DPS can figure out whether the person has a CHL or CDL, is a commissioned security guard, etc.

Then again, we are talking about government here. I don't know how it's done.

[Later] DPS operates the Texas Crime Records Service. Each local jurisdiction reports crimes to the state. However, these are either crimes reported by victims (theft, burglary, etc.) regardless of whether an arrest is made, combined with arrests for offenses such as DWI, possession of controlled substances, and prostitution. The Uniform Crime Reporting data does not necessarily include convictions or even whether a suspect was identified.

Here is an overview of the Texas Uniform Crime Reporting system: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The criminal records of adults generally are public records. I would think that CHL confidentiality would not apply, as the person's CHL would have been revoked after the conviction.

- Jim

I'm more interested in how those numbers compare against the total population of CHL holders, and then how those numbers compare against the general population.
Does anyone know how many people had a valid Texas CHL in '07?

DPS does not regularly publish the total number of currently valid licenses (a bizarre oversight). Every now and then a number comes out in the news.

From what I have read, in 2007 it was around 300,000.

This might help: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17975&p=204237" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

jamisjockey wrote:I'm more interested in how those numbers compare against the total population of CHL holders, and then how those numbers compare against the general population.
Does anyone know how many people had a valid Texas CHL in '07?

I have updated the Crime Statistics: CHL v. General Population. Again, the numbers show CHLs to be not only more law-abiding than the general population, but astoundingly so. It includes the information you want.

Chas.

seamusTX wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER... 15 people convicted, six were CHL's. So who were the other nine? I can only figure out of state licensees.

UNL CARRYING WEAPON... Seems like it would be pretty hard to be convicted of this (46.02) if you have a CHL, since CHL is a non-applicability of 46.02. Maybe it was people who were not carrying their CHL at the time.

These come up every year. No one knows. Most likely they are coding errors or plea bargains.

The topic has been discussed before:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=38706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is very unlikely that someone would be convicted of a crime for not having a CHL in his possession if the person had a valid CHL. Any halfway decent attorney could get that charge dismissed if the DA was a big enough male donkey to pursue it.

ScottDLS wrote:Note NO 30.06 convictions....NONE in all of 2007.

As far as I know, no one has ever been convicted of a 30.06 violation in 13 years since the law passed.

About a quarter of the messages on this forum are agonizing over nothing.

- Jim

In would be interesting to know under what circumstances these convictions occurred. Simplistically, aren't the only possibilities:
- carrying in a named place (school, court, sports arena, etc)
- carrying past a 30.06 sign
- carrying past a 51% sign
- carrying past verbal instruction

That seems like a pretty big number (second largest in 2007 after assault among CHLs) so there is some level of enforcement involved.

"Unlawful carry weapon" is PC 46.02.

The other offenses have different names, to wit:

• Places weapons prohibited
• Unlawful carry by a CHL holder
• Criminal trespass by a CHL holder

You can also see a line that says something like "unlawful carry alcohol premises." I'm too lazy to look it up.

The bottom line on any of these offenses is that would be very difficult to detect. The police don't have X-ray eyes and they don't go around stopping pedestrians for no reason, especially on private property (which is where 30.06 and some PC 46.035 offenses would apply).

The only valid reason I have seen for mass searches is in bars where some kind of systematic criminal activity is detected or illegal events like dog fights.

The police here busted up a bar where employees were allegedly selling drugs. They searched everyone in the bar. About 90% of the patrons had illegal drugs, illegal weapons, outstanding warrants, or were otherwise in violation of the law. (Fortunately none had a CHL, and probably none would have qualified for one.)

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jamisjockey wrote:I'm more interested in how those numbers compare against the total population of CHL holders, and then how those numbers compare against the general population.
Does anyone know how many people had a valid Texas CHL in '07?

I have updated the Crime Statistics: CHL v. General Population. Again, the numbers show CHLs to be not only more law-abiding than the general population, but astoundingly so. It includes the information you want.

Chas.

You, sir, continue to be the man.