OFCC Supporter: Excuse for public records demands left twisting in the wind
The following was submitted by OFCC Supporter Paul Barnett.
(In Lee Leonard's recent Columbus Dispatch story on the delay of Ohio CCW, Governor Taft's spokesperson, Orest) Holubec said records show that more than 400 felons received permits in Texas. "We want to avoid that in Ohio," he said, "and the easiest way to avoid it is to allow the sun to shine on the records."
I'm getting tired of this statistic being spread around in the mainstream media, without any context. The complete story is this:
Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.
When the Texas CHL law was first enacted, a provision was put into the law to require the Texas Dept. of Public Safety to issue a CHL within 90 days after application, unless they could show cause to deny it. The reason was to keep the DPS from using inaction as a defacto denial.
The CHL licensing unit was overwhelmed by the number of applications in the first year. They didn't have adequate staff (despite a significant application fee to fund it) and reportedly had several technical problems that caused further delays.
But, the real problem was that inquiries to other law enforcement agencies (outside Texas) were delayed or responses were slow. So, CHLs were issued as required by law, since there was no disqualifying info. Subsequently, the delayed responses to the out-of-state inquiries would arrive, and the DPS would revoke the CHL.
This information was compiled along with all of the other data about revocations and suspensions, but unless you looked closely at the date of the offense (which occurred before the CHL law was enacted -- some of them 20 years earlier), you wouldn't understand why.
The law was amended in 1997 to give the DPS up to 180 days to issue a CHL, but requires them to notify the applicant at 60 days, explaining the reason for the delay and estimating the additional time that would be required.
By the way, the law originally required reporting of all suspensions and revocations due to arrests, without regard to whether the CHL holder was subsequently convicted. That's one of the reasons that the CHL statistics for Texas appear to be inflated. It now limits that data to convictions, and I've compiled a summary of the most recent complete data at:
I'm not sure why anyone would believe that publicizing the names of CHL holders would avoid this problem, unless they think the general public is going to be combing through criminal history records, looking for a match.
- 1416 reads
