Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Wodathunkit wrote:Feeding off Cyphurs post on the volunteer school defense force (good read).
I have three daughters. The oldest is in 5th grade. She has 22 students in her classes. Some of these kids have been in school with her since private pre-school. If CHL's were allowed in school and if my daughters teacher(s) were interested in obtaining a CHL, I would pay for them to become CHL's. if I offset the cost with just five like minded parents in my daughters class it wouldn't be any financial strain on me (even multiplying by my 3 girls). Since recent events, of the 15 parents I've talked to so far, 9 would support this cause. If her teacher wouldn't be interested, I would find a teacher, principle, counselor, or custodian that would.
RHenriksen wrote:This thread is what inspired me to start the one in the 2013 legislative session board about lowering the state CHL fee for teachers (if we can't get that $140 fee lowered for *everybody*)

jmra wrote: DPS needs to change their practice and accept the electronic finger prints already on file for teachers. Use DL photo.
JALLEN wrote:jmra wrote: DPS needs to change their practice and accept the electronic finger prints already on file for teachers. Use DL photo.
I don't know about Texas but in California, LA especially, where forgery is practically a way of life, there would be too much risk of getting the wrong prints with the wrong applicant, on purpose. The safeguards to prevent this would be more extensive than having everyone just give new prints, I think.
jmra wrote:Since (I believe) 2008 all teachers are required to be finger printed. Regardless, if you haven't been finger printed then you would need to be. If the same company used by DPS has your finger prints on file and used the same procedures to obtain them then what could be the objection?
JALLEN wrote:jmra wrote:Since (I believe) 2008 all teachers are required to be finger printed. Regardless, if you haven't been finger printed then you would need to be. If the same company used by DPS has your finger prints on file and used the same procedures to obtain them then what could be the objection?
When I objected to having to give new fingerprint cards for a CHL renewal (in Florida) I was told that fingerprints change. Getting them correlated without misstep is another possibility, of a magnitude I can't calculate.
Just give new ones. You always have your fingers with you, don't ya? If it costs $15 or $20, it'll keep you from wasting it on some stupid degrading movie.
jmra wrote:JALLEN wrote:jmra wrote: DPS needs to change their practice and accept the electronic finger prints already on file for teachers. Use DL photo.
I don't know about Texas but in California, LA especially, where forgery is practically a way of life, there would be too much risk of getting the wrong prints with the wrong applicant, on purpose. The safeguards to prevent this would be more extensive than having everyone just give new prints, I think.
Here in Texas DPS and TEA use the same company and the same procedures (at least in my case) for finger printing. I guess there could be some addition security in doing it twice but the prints are tied to your DL the first time you do it just as it is the second time you do it.
jmra wrote:Since (I believe) 2008 all teachers are required to be finger printed. Regardless, if you haven't been finger printed then you would need to be. If the same company used by DPS has your finger prints on file and used the same procedures to obtain them then what could be the objection?
That's a nice thought. I thank both of you for your service.jmra wrote:As a nurse of 20+ years (many of those years at Children's Hospital in New Orleans) I feel she has done more for this country than I ever did in my 4 years of military service. My time in the service pales in comparison to the difference she has made in people's lives and in our community.

Return to 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Users browsing this forum: 2firfun50, dave_in_austin, terryg and 2 guests