Brother owes back support in Nevada, can he get tex CHL?

[gaddang1]

Thanks guys for all the feedback. I really appreciate it. I got more info about my brothers case. The agreement he made was with his Ex. She talked to the Churchill County DA of Nevada about the deal. No judge whatsoever deemed him delinquent.

I would also like add one more thing here, we live down here in the Rio Grande Valley in Cameron county. His job routinely takes him to remote locations all over Brownsville all the way up to Mission Texas at all hours of the day. It was actually me and his coworkers who brought up the issue of him getting his Texas Chl. The majority of his coworkers have it, including his boss.

So with this info, can he get a Texas CHL if he owes support in another state? Does Texas DPS and the Texas OAG do a check to see if a CHL applicant owes support in Texas only? Or do they do a 50 state check?

A couple of his coworkers have brought up of him getting a Florida Chl which I heard is a lot easier to get.

Please any relevant feedback would be appreciated it.

[emcee rib]

So with this info, can he get a Texas CHL if he owes support in another state? Does Texas DPS and the Texas OAG do a check to see if a CHL applicant owes support in Texas only? Or do they do a 50 state check?

He should be good to go unless he's so delinquent the Texas AG office is garnishing his wages.

[WildBill]

So with this info, can he get a Texas CHL if he owes support in another state? Does Texas DPS and the Texas OAG do a check to see if a CHL applicant owes support in Texas only? Or do they do a 50 state check?

He should be good to go unless he's so delinquent the Texas AG office is garnishing his wages.

Thanks guys for all the feedback. I really appreciate it. I got more info about my brothers case. The agreement he made was with his Ex. She talked to the Churchill County DA of Nevada about the deal. No judge whatsoever deemed him delinquent.

Now I am confused. You just said the DA said he was not delinquent, so what is the issue?

If he lives in Texas he should get a Texas CHL, not a Florida CWP.

[sjfcontrol]

I told you he was good back on page one. Here
He should be good to go unless he has issues in TEXAS.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

• 1. Child support has nothing to do with crime prevention, so the eligibility requirements related to child support or taxes are unconstitutional;
  2. Child support provisions in the Texas Family Code encourage divorce and have little to do with taking care of a child.
  • a. Texas law should be changed to require both parents to contribute specific amounts to a bank account requiring two signatures on checks (Mon and Dad) until a specified balance is achieved. Thereafter, deposits should be made only to bring the account up a the court-ordered balance;
    b. That account should be used to pay only expenses directly related to the child (clothes, medical care, school, etc.) and each parent should be entitled to reimbursement upon presentation of receipts for reimbursable expenses.
    c. When the child reaches 18 years of age, any funds in the account should be returned to Mom and Dad.

I'm not in favor of abandoning so-called "no fault" divorce because people just make up excuses to support divorce. However, Texas law actually encourages divorce and, in my opinion, that's bad policy. In case someone suspects otherwise, I've never had to pay child support, so my post isn't sour grapes.

Chas.

[91wm6]

1. Child support has nothing to do with crime prevention, so the eligibility requirements related to child support or taxes are unconstitutional;
2. Child support provisions in the Texas Family Code encourage divorce and have little to do with taking care of a child.
a. Texas law should be changed to require both parents to contribute specific amounts to a bank account requiring two signatures on checks (Mon and Dad) until a specified balance is achieved. Thereafter, deposits should be made only to bring the account up a the court-ordered balance;
b. That account should be used to pay only expenses directly related to the child (clothes, medical care, school, etc.) and each parent should be entitled to reimbursement upon presentation of receipts for reimbursable expenses.
c. When the child reaches 18 years of age, any funds in the account should be returned to Mom and Dad.


That is a damn good solution...