Employment and CHL application

[texanjoker]

If you want a Texas CHL Fill out the application, if not don't. It is a simple form and easy to do. If you lie on it and they find out you won't have a chl.

[Jared1981]

If you want a Texas CHL Fill out the application, if not don't. It is a simple form and easy to do. If you lie on it and they find out you won't have a chl.

I don't think you read what I wrote,

It's not lying, "n/a" means not applicable, in other words, its none of their business.

I guess some of us just want to stand up for our rights, just because you may not be interested, doesn't mean others would. For example, thats why Mike Stollenwork sued Pennsylvania, to get rid of their requirement to put a SSN, because it wasn't legal.

DPS has lied to people before, they used to insist that you must have a TX license if you reside in TX, yet nothing in the law ever supported that position.

[Jared1981]

I would be happy to put down the counties where I have worked however they are all out-of-state but I do not feel comfortable putting where I work for the reasons I stated above. Although it is rare, this has cost people their employment in New York and Ohio.

I throw down the baloney flag for Ohio.

The Ohio CHL application doesn't even ask for employers or references. There is no process in Ohio for a sheriff to even go down that path. Furthermore, all applications in Ohio are confidential and it would be a criminal offense for a sheriff to even reveal anything about an applicant to an employer.

You are factually incorrect on this, Ohio permit info was public information for a couple of years after shall issue was passed in 2004, many newspapers went crazy and published permit holders information. Some people did lose their jobs over having a CHL. That was one of the reasons they changed the law to make it private.

So Its not baloney, you stand corrected on this.

I don't stand corrected at all. It has been obvious from the get-go that your questions, discussion, and statements have been related to providing employment information. You went on to state that providing the counties where you worked somehow resulted in people losing their job.

Now you make a major topic shift and refer to the fact that after the the Ohio CHL law was enacted in April, 2004, the Cleveland Plain Dealer published a list of licenses in June, 2004. There were four other minor (local) newspapers that also published lists. These actions caused the Ohio Legislature to change the law so that such lists cannot be published in the future, so this was not only a change in topic, it was raising a moot point that no longer applies to Ohio. BTW, there is no proof or reported cases that I am aware of that publishing the list way back then resulted in anyone losing their job -- and I was closely following the Ohio CHL community.

Publishing such a list is also illegal in Texas, making your concern not applicable here anyway. Therefore the baloney flag still flies.

No, you are not comprehending what I wrote. I put that if the reason for DPS was to check god knows what in counties where I have worked, I would be ok with letting them know where. I never said that people have lost their jobs in counties where I have worked I said it has happened to people before.

My point is that since Texas law doesn't require employment, then it's not a material fact, and it would most likely not stand up in court if someone was denied for putting "n/a" (not applicable is what n/a means, it's not lying as some have incorrectly stated)

I'll have to take the NRA's word at examples of people in Ohio losing their jobs.

[Jared1981]

I also throw the flag, for NY. I am a Life Member of the NYSR&PA and have been for many decades and for several years was the co-chair of a coalition committee that was attempting to correct egregious violations of NY State pistol permit law by judges in charge of issuing those pistol permits. NY being a may issue state, judges would just deny for no stated reason and that was that. We successfully sued, and then judges had to provide a reason, so then they just started moving all PP applications to the bottom of the stack, so we sued, successfully, and also got the law changed, so that permits had to be acted upon in a timely manner. And then they started putting bogus reasons for denial on them, such as when a 28 year old competition pistol shooter from another state whose husband had the misfortune to get a job transfer to NY, was denied because she was too young, and then after a suit because she had young children in the house, and then, and then, and eventually we ran out of funds and she and her husband found a way for her to keep her guns in another state and travel there to shoot.

In all of my years of active membership, and in all of the years since I left NY, I have never heard of ONE case where someone was fired because they had a pistol permit, although I do know of a couple where failure to obtain a pistol permit resulted in termination of employment.

----------------

When my wife and I applied for our CHLs, a while back now, due to the way the questionnaire was worded, she only put down those times when she was actually employed, leaving out a couple of years when she was unemployed, from the time we got married in 1993 until 1995 when volunteer work at the school turned into a job offer, and then after we moved to TX when she was a stay at home mom for a while again.

DPS bounced her app due to gaps in employment history. A quick phone call determined that all they wanted was a continuous timeline of employment, including unemployment, and resubmitting with "unemployed" filling the gaps was all it took for the app to go through. We were told that the employment history was a check against a variety to things, but that's hearsay.

---------------------------

So far I have not seen one reasonable reason for NOT putting your employment history on your app.

OTOH, you could go ahead and try it and let us know how that works out. After all, it worked for you elsewhere, right?

Then you must know that in New York 400.00 requires employment, that and being that pistol permit holders are public info (small SAFE carve out for privacy if they approve), you are comfortable claiming that no one has ever lost their job if and when the sheriff called their place of employment. And so much for your 6 month requirement, Monroe Co routinely takes over a year but that's another topic.

You are missing the point, it doesn't matter what your consider reasonable, employment is not a requirement to obtain a TX CHL, it's shall-issue and unless you meet the disqualifiers in the statute, they have to issue. I think you may have been in New York for too long, some of us just respect our privacy and know that the government routinely collects more information than is required by law.

There is also no reason to be disrespectful with "OTOH, you could go ahead and try it and let us know how that works out. After all, it worked for you elsewhere, right?"
, New Hampshire will issue if you put not applicable for employment, I figured someone on here would have tried it so it wouldn't hurt to ask and see that way I save myself an application fee.

Maybe some of you are lucky and have a huge pension or trust fund, others like me and probably most people on here, have to work and not all employers are "pro-gun". So it's a combination of not wanting to mix political leanings with our livelihoods.

1. Employment is not always gun friendly and they can freak out over the mention of the word gun.

2. Employment isn't required by TX law ( and that means more than your opinion from New York where many sheriffs come to your house for an interview).

3. Sometime's the government asks for too much info. If it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother others.

So I just thought I'd ask a question, without everyone jumping over someone who may just want to stand up for their rights. But it's fine, really, I can just carry in TX on my Arizona license.... it's cheaper anyway.

[jbarn]

Jared, why did you come here and ask if you are going to argue with us?

As Dr Phil says, "when you choose your behavior you choose your consequence".

Do whatever you want. You are clearly smarter than all of us.......

[polly]

If you want a Texas CHL Fill out the application, if not don't. It is a simple form and easy to do. If you lie on it and they find out you won't have a chl.

I don't think you read what I wrote,

It's not lying, "n/a" means not applicable, in other words, its none of their business.

The first half of that is right. The second half is wrong.

If I don't have children, the age of my children is N/A. If I have a child, their age is not N/A, although their age may be NOYB.

HTH

[Jared1981]

Jared, why did you come here and ask if you are going to argue with us?

As Dr Phil says, "when you choose your behavior you choose your consequence".

Do whatever you want. You are clearly smarter than all of us.......

I did come here and ask. And most except for Bill jumped all over it.

It was simple. I'll try again.

Since Texas LAW does not require employment as a condition of obtaining a CHL. Has anyone put not applicable (or whatever legal terminology you were comfortable with to not give unrequired and immaterial information)? If so, did DPS issue or not?

I didnt ask to be scrutinized, on why. It's just none of their business and some people have jobs like private school teachers where the mention of gun MAY bring you under great scrutiny.

Everyone who is arrested in the U.S. has prints taken; therefore any criminal disqualifiers would show up when prints are ran through the FBI.

I know for a fact that New Hampshire didn't care in my experience when I crossed out the employment block. Neither did the State department care when I renewed my passport.

So please forgive me if I am asking if any of the hundreds of thousands of CHL holders in TX have ever done the same.

If not, that's fine, if people are happy to put employment, fine. I'm not here to judge them. But to me, it's important. Just as it was important to the gentleman in Georgia who sued over this issue, just as the illegal SSN requirement was important to Mike Stollenwork when he sued to have that provision struck down in Pennsylvania.

Besides, I would imagine than a student from Syria on a student visa makes it quite a challenge to call up Damascus and track down criminal history overseas, yet they are still issued licenses upon background check clearance.

Like I said, just because the question is on the form doesn't mean that DPS will cart blanch deny an application, maybe it was never explained to them. Back when packing.org was around, TX used to have a 6 month residency requirement and they told people that after 6 months yet had to get a TX license, they were wrong and they backed down when one of the mods at packing.org put their feet to the fire and said what law mandates that? So it's not just as simple, as the all questions must be answered.

[jimlongley]

I also throw the flag, for NY. I am a Life Member of the NYSR&PA and have been for many decades and for several years was the co-chair of a coalition committee that was attempting to correct egregious violations of NY State pistol permit law by judges in charge of issuing those pistol permits. NY being a may issue state, judges would just deny for no stated reason and that was that. We successfully sued, and then judges had to provide a reason, so then they just started moving all PP applications to the bottom of the stack, so we sued, successfully, and also got the law changed, so that permits had to be acted upon in a timely manner. And then they started putting bogus reasons for denial on them, such as when a 28 year old competition pistol shooter from another state whose husband had the misfortune to get a job transfer to NY, was denied because she was too young, and then after a suit because she had young children in the house, and then, and then, and eventually we ran out of funds and she and her husband found a way for her to keep her guns in another state and travel there to shoot.

In all of my years of active membership, and in all of the years since I left NY, I have never heard of ONE case where someone was fired because they had a pistol permit, although I do know of a couple where failure to obtain a pistol permit resulted in termination of employment.

----------------

When my wife and I applied for our CHLs, a while back now, due to the way the questionnaire was worded, she only put down those times when she was actually employed, leaving out a couple of years when she was unemployed, from the time we got married in 1993 until 1995 when volunteer work at the school turned into a job offer, and then after we moved to TX when she was a stay at home mom for a while again.

DPS bounced her app due to gaps in employment history. A quick phone call determined that all they wanted was a continuous timeline of employment, including unemployment, and resubmitting with "unemployed" filling the gaps was all it took for the app to go through. We were told that the employment history was a check against a variety to things, but that's hearsay.

---------------------------

So far I have not seen one reasonable reason for NOT putting your employment history on your app.

OTOH, you could go ahead and try it and let us know how that works out. After all, it worked for you elsewhere, right?

Then you must know that in New York 400.00 requires employment, that and being that pistol permit holders are public info (small SAFE carve out for privacy if they approve), you are comfortable claiming that no one has ever lost their job if and when the sheriff called their place of employment. And so much for your 6 month requirement, Monroe Co routinely takes over a year but that's another topic.

You are missing the point, it doesn't matter what your consider reasonable, employment is not a requirement to obtain a TX CHL, it's shall-issue and unless you meet the disqualifiers in the statute, they have to issue. I think you may have been in New York for too long, some of us just respect our privacy and know that the government routinely collects more information than is required by law.

There is also no reason to be disrespectful with "OTOH, you could go ahead and try it and let us know how that works out. After all, it worked for you elsewhere, right?"
, New Hampshire will issue if you put not applicable for employment, I figured someone on here would have tried it so it wouldn't hurt to ask and see that way I save myself an application fee.

Maybe some of you are lucky and have a huge pension or trust fund, others like me and probably most people on here, have to work and not all employers are "pro-gun". So it's a combination of not wanting to mix political leanings with our livelihoods.

1. Employment is not always gun friendly and they can freak out over the mention of the word gun.

2. Employment isn't required by TX law ( and that means more than your opinion from New York where many sheriffs come to your house for an interview).

3. Sometime's the government asks for too much info. If it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother others.

So I just thought I'd ask a question, without everyone jumping over someone who may just want to stand up for their rights. But it's fine, really, I can just carry in TX on my Arizona license.... it's cheaper anyway.

Like I said, why don't you try it and lets us know how you make out.

As for the rest of your tirade, my only issue was with your statement that people in NY have lost their jobs due to having pistol permits. Since you have not named a single case, I'll assume that was not entirely truthful.

But now you have introduced other issues. Your statement that "400 requires employment" flies in the face of fact. Nowhere does section 400 of the NY State Penal code mention employment as a requirement for obtaining a pistol permit EXCEPT in regard to jobs requiring carrying a gun, unless you are referring to: "(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof" Which clearly runs counter to your statement.

And where did I mention "6 months"? Hmmm, maybe you found that in the statutes somewhere, and you are indicating that Monroe County routinely fails to comply with NY State Law?

So, go ahead and try it and stop arguing with the cooler heads who have advised against it. Obviously no one here knows of anyone doing it, so you make the ideal test case, but arguing with us is no way to accomplish anything, and stop implying that my enforced residency in NY has anything to do with your lack of knowledge of NY State Law, I left as soon as I could and agree that things there are pretty poor with Andy's Law in place.

[Jared1981]

It just comes down to principal. I really just do not want to mention employment.

That is your right but be aware that a false statement is grounds for denial and may be a criminal act. However, nobody is forcing you to apply if you are not willing to complete the application process. It's your choice.

It's not a material fact. That's why you can still get a passport while leaving all employment questions blank or by putting n/a.

The reason I asked this question is because the law only allows for a permit to be denied for being federally prohibited or if you meet the list of additional disqualifiers in the statute, and employment isn't mentioned in there.

Surely they couldn't ask sexual preference or other issues of immaterial nature, so unless Texas plans to go may-issue and allow for work purpose only restrictions, then I don't see why employment is relevant as it's not material.

I also don't buy the reason that they ask is so they can do a further background check, if I was convicted of a crime, it would show up when they run my prints.

You are not eligible to get a CHL if you are currently charged or indictment for certain crimes. I don't think this would show up when they run your prints.

I understand your objection, but realistically there are a number of government agencies and private databases that can obtain your work history [and more] in about 5 seconds. Not putting the information on the application won't serve any purpose except for delaying the application process. If "they" really wanted to find out where you worked, they don't have to ask you. They can also check to see if you are lying on the application.

Bill,

Thank you again for engaging the question trying to understand what I'm getting at, I really do appreciate it.

If you are indicted for a crime , it will show up in the FBI NCIC database. Even if you are arrested and the charges are dropped it will still show up unless you get an expungement.

I do recall that back on my initial Utah application back around 2000, they asked for the SSN and they specifically said on the app that if you didn't want to disclose it to just put "n/a".

So being that n/a is generally used as a place holder for into that either doesn't apply or is something you do not want to answer, I just figured I'd ask if anyone has had any experience in doing so in TX, I didn't expect to be jumped on it by the forum police. But it seems most people just want to scrutinize and inject their opinions.

Thanks again anyways, I'll just keep my Arizona permit active and save myself the few hundred dollars in training and application fees.

Take care

[Jared1981]

I also throw the flag, for NY. I am a Life Member of the NYSR&PA and have been for many decades and for several years was the co-chair of a coalition committee that was attempting to correct egregious violations of NY State pistol permit law by judges in charge of issuing those pistol permits. NY being a may issue state, judges would just deny for no stated reason and that was that. We successfully sued, and then judges had to provide a reason, so then they just started moving all PP applications to the bottom of the stack, so we sued, successfully, and also got the law changed, so that permits had to be acted upon in a timely manner. And then they started putting bogus reasons for denial on them, such as when a 28 year old competition pistol shooter from another state whose husband had the misfortune to get a job transfer to NY, was denied because she was too young, and then after a suit because she had young children in the house, and then, and then, and eventually we ran out of funds and she and her husband found a way for her to keep her guns in another state and travel there to shoot.

In all of my years of active membership, and in all of the years since I left NY, I have never heard of ONE case where someone was fired because they had a pistol permit, although I do know of a couple where failure to obtain a pistol permit resulted in termination of employment.

----------------

When my wife and I applied for our CHLs, a while back now, due to the way the questionnaire was worded, she only put down those times when she was actually employed, leaving out a couple of years when she was unemployed, from the time we got married in 1993 until 1995 when volunteer work at the school turned into a job offer, and then after we moved to TX when she was a stay at home mom for a while again.

DPS bounced her app due to gaps in employment history. A quick phone call determined that all they wanted was a continuous timeline of employment, including unemployment, and resubmitting with "unemployed" filling the gaps was all it took for the app to go through. We were told that the employment history was a check against a variety to things, but that's hearsay.

---------------------------

So far I have not seen one reasonable reason for NOT putting your employment history on your app.

OTOH, you could go ahead and try it and let us know how that works out. After all, it worked for you elsewhere, right?

Then you must know that in New York 400.00 requires employment, that and being that pistol permit holders are public info (small SAFE carve out for privacy if they approve), you are comfortable claiming that no one has ever lost their job if and when the sheriff called their place of employment. And so much for your 6 month requirement, Monroe Co routinely takes over a year but that's another topic.

You are missing the point, it doesn't matter what your consider reasonable, employment is not a requirement to obtain a TX CHL, it's shall-issue and unless you meet the disqualifiers in the statute, they have to issue. I think you may have been in New York for too long, some of us just respect our privacy and know that the government routinely collects more information than is required by law.

There is also no reason to be disrespectful with "OTOH, you could go ahead and try it and let us know how that works out. After all, it worked for you elsewhere, right?"
, New Hampshire will issue if you put not applicable for employment, I figured someone on here would have tried it so it wouldn't hurt to ask and see that way I save myself an application fee.

Maybe some of you are lucky and have a huge pension or trust fund, others like me and probably most people on here, have to work and not all employers are "pro-gun". So it's a combination of not wanting to mix political leanings with our livelihoods.

1. Employment is not always gun friendly and they can freak out over the mention of the word gun.

2. Employment isn't required by TX law ( and that means more than your opinion from New York where many sheriffs come to your house for an interview).

3. Sometime's the government asks for too much info. If it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother others.

So I just thought I'd ask a question, without everyone jumping over someone who may just want to stand up for their rights. But it's fine, really, I can just carry in TX on my Arizona license.... it's cheaper anyway.

Like I said, why don't you try it and lets us know how you make out.

As for the rest of your tirade, my only issue was with your statement that people in NY have lost their jobs due to having pistol permits. Since you have not named a single case, I'll assume that was not entirely truthful.

But now you have introduced other issues. Your statement that "400 requires employment" flies in the face of fact. Nowhere does section 400 of the NY State Penal code mention employment as a requirement for obtaining a pistol permit EXCEPT in regard to jobs requiring carrying a gun, unless you are referring to: "(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof" Which clearly runs counter to your statement.

And where did I mention "6 months"? Hmmm, maybe you found that in the statutes somewhere, and you are indicating that Monroe County routinely fails to comply with NY State Law?

So, go ahead and try it and stop arguing with the cooler heads who have advised against it. Obviously no one here knows of anyone doing it, so you make the ideal test case, but arguing with us is no way to accomplish anything, and stop implying that my enforced residency in NY has anything to do with your lack of knowledge of NY State Law, I left as soon as I could and agree that things there are pretty poor with Andy's Law in place.

I understand Jim, but New York is a big state so consider that someone has lost a job when the sheriff's office has contacted a place of employment, not everyone has Tom King on speed dial. Also, being that most of the old formats of New York Licenses list your occupation on the actual permit, it's basically required unless you were lucky enough to have a good pistol judge. But yes, many counties like Monroe do take up to and over a year to issue, Ontario Co is pretty bad as well.

That's why I was asking, I don't have the money to be a test case, I wasn't arguing with anyone, I just don't care for their opinions on the matter which is why I asked if anyone has had any success in doing so. I didn't expect everyone to scrutinize my credentials or give me a grammar 101 lecture on "n/a" when it's frequently used as a place holder to omit or not answer a question.

So have a good day as you basically only wanted to inject that you feel that employment is a fair question and I'm sorry to say that TX law matters much more than your opinion. That and how my New York example (which is true) must be a lie because you obviously know what goes on in all counties in NY with all applications with your "decades" of experience with NYSPRA.

[WildBill]

So have a good day as you basically only wanted to inject that you feel that employment is a fair question and I'm sorry to say that TX law matters much more than your opinion.

While employment is not an edibility requirement for a Texas CHL, filling out the forms are required. The DPS has certain administrative procedures which they must follow. They may not be the law, but the employees must follow them. If their procedure says that employment history for five years needs to be on the application, the person processing the application is required for that section to be completed before accepting the application. If the DPS rejected the application for this reason you could probably appeal to the DPS. If they still denied the CHL license you would then have to file a lawsuit. IANAL, but that is my take on the subject.

[jbarn]

Jared, why did you come here and ask if you are going to argue with us?

As Dr Phil says, "when you choose your behavior you choose your consequence".

Do whatever you want. You are clearly smarter than all of us.......

I did come here and ask. And most except for Bill jumped all over it.

It was simple. I'll try again.

All of that rhetoric is just that. The legislature made the requirements, and gave DPS the authority to create rules to administer the law. Those rules must be followed or no license. It is that simple. By your argument I could scribble out my name on a sheet of paper and and DPS would have to issue a license, even if I refuse to submit to prints or giving my DOB. After all, thats an invasion of my privacy.

Don't argue with me, because I do not care and won't read it.

[Jared1981]

Jared, why did you come here and ask if you are going to argue with us?

As Dr Phil says, "when you choose your behavior you choose your consequence".

Do whatever you want. You are clearly smarter than all of us.......

I did come here and ask. And most except for Bill jumped all over it.

It was simple. I'll try again.

All of that rhetoric is just that. The legislature made the requirements, and gave DPS the authority to create rules to administer the law. Those rules must be followed or no license. It is that simple. By your argument I could scribble out my name on a sheet of paper and and DPS would have to issue a license, even if I refuse to submit to prints or giving my DOB. After all, thats an invasion of my privacy.

Don't argue with me, because I do not care and won't read it.

Name and DOB are material questions, and fingerprints are required by statute, but you are just trolling with nothing to contribute to the discussion. DPS can only carry out the law, not make up additional requirements, surely they couldn't ask sexual preference or for your PIN number to your bank account. There has to be a limit and that limit is set by statute.


Thank you for you advice, it was worth exactly what I paid for it.

Being that you're an instructor, you obviously are biased and are interested in preserving all the CHL requirements, even those that are made up by DPS, just as the instructors were in Arizona who opposed constitution carry in 2010 because it took money out of their racket. You know the requirements and your more interested in making money off of the process of people exercising fundamental rights, so you're questionable at best.

Try to look at what I am saying, even though DPS and their training are the hands that feed you. You are a TX certified instructor and should know the law, and employment isn't in the law, but I'm guessing you know that with all of your TX certifications...

[Keith B]

OK folks, this topic is getting heated. Any further personal attacks or jabs at others and the topic will be locked.

[Jared1981]

OK folks, this topic is getting heated. Any further personal attacks or jabs at others and the topic will be locked.

If it's all the same , I would kindly request that you keep this open so if someone finds this at a later date and contributes to this, it would be appreciated. So far, Bill has made points of value and laid out what may happen.

I didn't realize that this topic would be a magnet for some folks who make their livings off of licensing a fundamental right, but it would be natural to expect them to be abrupt about it.

When I lived in Arizona, we had the same thing happen when constitutional carry was making it's way through the legislature, many instructors defended everything DPS did and were in bed with them because once the program was threatened, they knew they either had to provide real training of value that people would voluntarily pay for and take, as opposed to paying to exercise a right.

So I expect anyone who challenges anything DPS does or even asks about it to be very resistant and nasty about it. Like I said, many people make a living off of the licensing process.

Expect the same here if TX ever tries for constitution carry.