TexasCHLforum.com

recaffeination wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Total number of suspensions AND revocations for TCLEOSE licensees was 23 last year. Out of +/- 75,000 licensees. Which yields 0.03%. The number of active licenses changes almost daily so that figure is subject to change.

The DPS data I saw for 2011 showed 120 convictions and a little over half a million licenses at the end of the year. That gives me a rate a little under 0.024% for CHL. We can bicker about minutae or we can agree the rates for LEO and CHL are very close, especially in comparison to the average person. If we agree on the second, then it seem a LEO has as much or little reason to disarm a Texas Concealed License holder as he does a fellow Texas Peace Officer under the same circumstances, such as a traffic stop.

gigag04 wrote:I don't intend to to bicker. Some here have indicated that LEOs have a higher criminal incidence than CHL holders. When looking at the Texas numbers, this just isn't the case. CHLs have 6-8 times rate of incidence.

The percentages look very close but 0.024% is slightly less than 0.03% not 6-8 times higher.

E.Marquez wrote:<SNIP>

Back on topic…

Are we (the general group, not a single user) in agreement..

Certain Weapons. Article 18.19, CCP, and Chapter 46, PC. 05.10 Weapons
1.Firearms and Other Weapons (knives, blackjack, club, etc.). When a firearm comes into the possession of a DPS officer, for any reason, the officer will check with NCIC for a possible stolen report.

Provides the authority to do the NCIC check? if you contend that point.. can you restate why?

Thanks

Boldface mine

Am I misreading this? The way it reads seems to me that the possession "for any reason" and subsequent NCIC check applies to the Texas Department of Public Safety and does NOT apply to local or county officers.

Sangiovese wrote:I think the formatting of the information has resulted in some confusion. .

You may be on to something.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-pr ... 19.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The language we have been reading snippets of sure seems to support a NCIC check..

But when you open and READ the entire section of 18.19
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 18.19 - Disposition Of Seized Weapons
(a) Weapons seized in connection with an offense involving the use of a weapon or an offense under Penal Code Chapter 46 shall be held ...

it is no long so clear that the subsection applies to a weapon taken for "safety" during a stop or other contact for a minor violation.

I'm even more convinced at this point neither laymen or lawman will unravel this one... It will take some lawyer work and perhaps an AG opinion and a rewrite of some code, regulation and law to make it clear.

E.Marquez wrote:

Sangiovese wrote:I think the formatting of the information has resulted in some confusion. .

You may be on to something.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-pr ... 19.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The language we have been reading snippets of sure seems to support a NCIC check..

But when you open and READ the entire section of 18.19
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 18.19 - Disposition Of Seized Weapons
(a) Weapons seized in connection with an offense involving the use of a weapon or an offense under Penal Code Chapter 46 shall be held ...

it is no long so clear that the subsection applies to a weapon taken for "safety" during a stop or other contact for a minor violation.

I'm even more convinced at this point neither laymen or lawman will unravel this one... It will take some lawyer work and perhaps an AG opinion and a rewrite of some code, regulation and law to make it clear.

It seems very clear to me that the section 18.19 reference in the DPS response is part of section 5.09 of the DPS policy, which defines how they deal with seized property. If you read it as formatted in my earlier post, it is very clear. Section 5.09 of the DPS policy has 4 numbered items and the 18.19 reference is in number 4. Numbers 1-4 of section 5.09 of their policy gives the penal code or criminal procedure code that covers each listed type of seized property.

The next section of their policy (5.10) is what directs them to run the checks. That section (at least the portion that they provided) does not reference any statute or code mandating running the checks. So what it looks like we are dealing with is simply DPS policy directing their officers to run the check whenever they come into possession of a firearm, and then to attach the results of that check if they seize the firearm.

I am going to add line numbers in red to the 3 lines that are causing the confusion.

1 - Certain Weapons. Article 18.19, CCP, and Chapter 46, PC.
2 - 05.10 Weapons
3 - 1.Firearms and Other Weapons (knives, blackjack, club, etc.). When a firearm comes into the possession of a DPS officer, for any reason, the officer will check with NCIC for a possible stolen report.

Line 1 is item number 4 in section 5.09 of the DPS policy.
Line 2 is the heading for section 5.10 of the DPS policy
Line 3 is item number 1 in section 5.10 of the DPS policy.

With the formatting of the original post, it is easy to look at it and think that line 1 is a heading for 5.10, but when you look closer it isn't. It is part of the previous section and has nothing to do with the NCIC check that the policy mandates.

This is all tangental to the main point... all this means is that the check they are running is mandated by policy, not by law.

The main point is that some people believe they are using officer safety (authorized to disarm by law) as a pretext to gain control of a weapon simply so they may then, as a matter of policy run the background check.

I have no opinion about whether they are doing this because I have no firsthand information or experience with it. I have had occasion to show my CHL to 3 different officers since I received it. One was a DPS trooper responding to an accident in which I was rear ended. In all of those cases my firearm was holstered on my hip. I was not disarmed in any of them.

sunny beach wrote:

recaffeination wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Total number of suspensions AND revocations for TCLEOSE licensees was 23 last year. Out of +/- 75,000 licensees. Which yields 0.03%. The number of active licenses changes almost daily so that figure is subject to change.

The DPS data I saw for 2011 showed 120 convictions and a little over half a million licenses at the end of the year. That gives me a rate a little under 0.024% for CHL. We can bicker about minutae or we can agree the rates for LEO and CHL are very close, especially in comparison to the average person. If we agree on the second, then it seem a LEO has as much or little reason to disarm a Texas Concealed License holder as he does a fellow Texas Peace Officer under the same circumstances, such as a traffic stop.

gigag04 wrote:I don't intend to to bicker. Some here have indicated that LEOs have a higher criminal incidence than CHL holders. When looking at the Texas numbers, this just isn't the case. CHLs have 6-8 times rate of incidence.

The percentages look very close but 0.024% is slightly less than 0.03% not 6-8 times higher.

Yeah I was reading it as .24 instead of .024....

So yeah almost the same.

gigag04 wrote:Yeah I was reading it as .24 instead of .024....

No disrespect meant gigag04, but what you just posted above is a prime example of how a LEO can "run" an CHL's handgun serial number (incorrectly) and it comes back stolen and off to jail he goes.........

Do you see my point?

Apparently, both Texas CHLs and LEOs have a pretty good track record.

AEA wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Yeah I was reading it as .24 instead of .024....

No disrespect meant gigag04, but what you just posted above is a prime example of how a LEO can "run" an CHL's handgun serial number (incorrectly) and it comes back stolen and off to jail he goes.........

Do you see my point?

No. You're stretching. My attention to detail when browsing the forum inbetween calls on my phone is quite different than handling a potentially stolen firearm and taking away someone's civil liberty.

Having recovered quite a few stolen firearms, I promise you, it's quite detailed with lots of confirmations. Sure it COULD happen, but you'd be more likely to hit the powerball.

I just wanted to clarify one point that GigAg04 made in this comparison. TCLEOSE can suspend a peace officer's license for many reasons, not just criminal convictions. In general, the suspensions for convictions are based on if the person will be eligible to get a license back while the revocations are based on convictions that are permanent bars to police employment.

Also, the publication GigAg04 referred to is the list for suspensions/convictions based on criminal actions only. For example, in Sep 12's quarterly meeting, the commission suspended well over the 23 indicated licenses because they failed to complete their required in service training. Obviously, this would nto be fair to include in the comparison for convictions.

I also wanted to point out that there are some very weird cases included in revocations. For example, one new person had received a traffic ticket in Washington state for driving on a suspended license. It is just a ticket there, but it was a class B misdemeanor here. He reported the ticket on all of his applications and went through the academy and was licensed. I don't know how, but someone at TCLEOSE caught it and they revoked the license for his being ineligible due to a class B conviction. I don't know if DPS could due that with a CHL or not.

srothstein wrote:I don't know how, but someone at TCLEOSE caught it and they revoked the license for his being ineligible due to a class B conviction. I don't know if DPS could due that with a CHL or not.

If DPS mistakenly issues a license to someone who isn't eligible, I think they can correct the mistake.

hillfighter wrote:

srothstein wrote:I don't know how, but someone at TCLEOSE caught it and they revoked the license for his being ineligible due to a class B conviction. I don't know if DPS could due that with a CHL or not.

If DPS mistakenly issues a license to someone who isn't eligible, I think they can correct the mistake.

Yes they can. It has been done before.

DWLI can be a class C or B misdemeanor. Curious how they sided with the B.

TC 521.457

gigag04 wrote:DWLI can be a class C or B misdemeanor. Curious how they sided with the B.

TC 521.457

My guess is they may have been involved in an accident.

I'm not trying to . However, I ran across this article when I was doing some research on the Houston police chief. The numbers seem kind of high to me.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 886569.php

I have read all 5 pages but have not seen any stats on how many guns from CHL's have been confiscated after running a NCIC check. I am guessing this info should be available and I am wondering why it was not supplied with the original FOIA?