TexasCHLforum.com

Has anyone heard the statute has changed from 60 to 90 days? I thought that would take some legislation but I was told today that it had, or at least the lady I spoke to was given a memo stating that fact.

There has been no change in the statute. They just aren't meeting the statutory requirements for whatever reason (not going to start that debate again).

According to the statute, at least the way I read it, they have 60 days to act either way and notify you of the decision or the reason for the delay - the additional 30 days may be a reference to 411.177(c) which states that if the department has not acted within 30 days of its limit (60 days) then it constitutes a denial.

To me this represents a very large and convoluted can of worms. Technically the department, in 411.177(b)(1), (2), &(3) has three choices, approve, deny with cause, or notify you of the delay (in writing, not over the phone when you call to enquire) within 60 days. If they don't get it done within another 30 days, then it's an automatic denial.

Now here comes the rub to me, jailhouse lawyering here, if you have been denied a CHL in the past, it can constitute a reason to deny again, so if the automatic denial actually takes place, per the statute, then that is reason for the department to deny a re-application.

Maybe this is just a vast conspiracy in DPS to deny any further CHLs from being approved.

Or maybe it's just one of those unanticipated consequences that could come back and bite us if ACLU or AARP decides to make a case of it.

Either way it's too bad the statute doesn't include some sort of relief or penalty for protracted non-action by the department. I think that automatic denial clause needs to be expunged during the next legislative session, and some sort of relief substituted.

it's too bad the statute doesn't include some sort of relief or penalty for protracted non-action by the department. I think that automatic denial clause needs to be expunged during the next legislative session, and some sort of relief substituted.

My suggestion: Automatic approval if the licensing authority has not acted and notified the applicant within the statutory period.

This would require a license to be issued immediately at that point. It wouldn't prevent it from being revoked later for cause (e.g., discovery that an applicant had submitted false information - a valid law enforcement concern) but it would keep an important right from being denied by default.

Excaliber wrote:

it's too bad the statute doesn't include some sort of relief or penalty for protracted non-action by the department. I think that automatic denial clause needs to be expunged during the next legislative session, and some sort of relief substituted.

My suggestion: Automatic approval if the licensing authority has not acted and notified the applicant within the statutory period.

This would require a license to be issued immediately at that point. It wouldn't prevent it from being revoked later for cause (e.g., discovery that an applicant had submitted false information - a valid law enforcement concern) but it would keep an important right from being denied by default.

Which would automatically put many of our reciprocity agreements at risk!

Which would automatically put many of our reciprocity agreements at risk!

Good point. The idea needs some refinement.

How about automatic approval of a specially marked license that would be valid only within the state of TX and not eligible for reciprocity until the full application review process has been completed? A standard license would be issued at that point.

Of course, that would necessitate issuing/printing/mailing two licenses to every applicant (or just those who go over the time limit). That would lead to increased costs, blah blah blah.

Of course, that would necessitate issuing/printing/mailing two licenses to every applicant (or just those who go over the time limit). That would lead to increased costs, blah blah blah.

Yup, and therein lies the incentive for processing application and issuing licenses on time - decreased effort and cost.

Where there's a will, there's a way. The trick is to inspire the right folks to work up the will.

Continuing to let our representatives know how important this is to a whole lot of folks who actually go out and vote is the most likely road to success.

It might be worthwhile to allow DPS to keep a portion of the funds generated by CHL, instead of sending it all to the general fund. That way, they have funds available to higher temps when the need arises.

I don't remember where I read it, or how I came across the article, but I read something this morning indicating that some other starts are seeing a backlog as well.