My CHL RENEWAL is only good for 4 years.

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:57 pm

So I get my CHL RENEWAL LICENSE in the mail today, and it is only good for 4 years (expires in 2009). Anyone else experience this? I purposely waited till after 09/01 to submit it to avoid this problem.

The only thing I can think of is they processed it as a NEW CHL, but since they gave me the same license number they clearly knew it was a RENEWAL.

So now I have two licenses one that expires this December, and one in December of 2009.

DO RENEWAL license look different? Mine looks the same as the old (blue upper right, red lower left, white BG), except for date, sig and photo.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:08 pm

Renewals look the same.

Do I understand that your current license does not expire until THIS December?

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:12 pm

txinvestigator wrote:Renewals look the same.

Do I understand that your current license does not expire until THIS December?

Yes, my "current" (as in the only one I had yesterday), expires on Bday December 2005. My new CHL (as in the one I got in the mail today), expires on my Bday December 2009. I now currently have two valid CHLs. I was expecting the new CHL to expire on Bday December 2010, and not be good until Bday December 2005, so as to meet the NICS 5 year rule.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:06 pm

Call DPS. I know of one person whose renewal CHL was late and the reason DPS gave for the delay was an error in printing the expiration date - i.e. a year short. Candidly, I thought it was just the latest excuse, but maybe it was true.

Regards,
Chas.

ElGato · Post by **ElGato** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:40 pm

Renegade, did you sign up on line and pay them with a credit card before Sept. 1? If you did they would send you a 4 year license, for the new laws to go into effect they were going by the date they recieved the payment.

I had two Seniors, a man and his wife, who had waited to come to class together but signed up on line the week before Sept. 1. It cost them 70.00 each for a four year license, if they had known and waited that week it would have been 35.00 each for five year licenses.

Tom

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:53 pm

ElGato wrote:Renegade, did you sign up on line and pay them with a credit card before Sept. 1? If you did they would send you a 4 year license, for the new laws to go into effect they were going by the date they recieved the payment.
Tom

Yes I did, but that is not what the law says:

SECTION 3. Section 411.183(b), Government Code, is amended
to read as follows:
(b) A renewed license expires on the license holder's
birthdate, five [four] years after the date of the expiration of the
previous license.
SECTION 4. Section 411.173(a-1), Government Code, is
repealed.
SECTION 5. This Act applies only to a license renewed on or
after September 1, 2005.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

My CHL was NOT renewed prior to 09/01/05, it was renewed after and as others point out, I did not even have a RENEWAL packet at the time I paid. (not that I am arguing with you, just pointing out the facts for others to see).

So new question, anyone else pay by CC BEFORE 09/01, submit after 09/01 and get a 5 year RENEWAL?

ElGato · Post by **ElGato** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:00 pm

I thought it was unfair too, but that's the way they explained it to me when I called some time in July

Tom

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:06 pm

ElGato wrote:I thought it was unfair too, but that's the way they explained it to me when I called some time in July

Tom

Thanks. 4 years instead of 5 is not the end of the world, but I must admit, I am really getting tired of the law being written in plain English, and folks who do not like it just deciding it means something else. This seems to be happening a lot.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:02 am

Renegade:
I would still call DPS and tell them they made a mistake on your license and ask them to change it. I'm sure they'll tell you what Tom said, but I would politely tell them the fee payment date has nothing to do with the new expiration date. The "trigger" is the expiration date on the expiring license. I would not agree to send the CHL back and wait for another one, but I would agree to send it back when the new one arives.

If they refuse, send me a PM and I'll give you my office phone number.

Let me know what happens on this one.

Chas.

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:07 am

Thanks, I sent them an e-mail as I wanted a written answer. If I do not like the answer, I will follow-up with a phone call.

This brings up another issue though, if it had been for 5 years, then it would have been good for 5 years and 2 months, and possibly 4 months had I submitted it earlier. This means a TEXAS CHL RENEWAL exceeds the 5 year limit for for NICS EXEMPTION. This could be a problem.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:37 am

Renegade wrote:This brings up another issue though, if it had been for 5 years, then it would have been good for 5 years and 2 months, and possibly 4 months had I submitted it earlier. This means a TEXAS CHL RENEWAL exceeds the 5 year limit for for NICS EXEMPTION. This could be a problem.

No. The "new" license does not take effect until the "old" one expires, regardless when it is actually printed or mailed. You could have carried pursuant to your "old" license until your birthday, so the "new" license did not provide you any additional time you would not have otherwise have had. This is consistent with Texas law and it's also DPS's official position. This was verified, and our NICS exemption status was confirmed, well before the bill was set for a public hearing. The NICS exemption status is also the reason the 5 year license provision could not be applied to an initial CHL.

Regards,
Chas.

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:55 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Renegade wrote:This brings up another issue though, if it had been for 5 years, then it would have been good for 5 years and 2 months, and possibly 4 months had I submitted it earlier. This means a TEXAS CHL RENEWAL exceeds the 5 year limit for for NICS EXEMPTION. This could be a problem.
No. The "new" license does not take effect until the "old" one expires, regardless when it is actually printed or mailed. You could have carried pursuant to your "old" license until your birthday, so the "new" license did not provide you any additional time you would not have otherwise have had. This is consistent with Texas law and it's also DPS's official position. This was verified, and our NICS exemption status was confirmed, well before the bill was set for a public hearing. The NICS exemption status is also the reason the 5 year license provision could not be applied to an initial CHL.

Regards,
Chas.

That is not made clear to RENEWAL applicants, in fact DPS web site says your license is valid and you can carry as soon as you get it (page 61, though they probably mean a NEW license). I bet many folks toss their old license when the new one arrives, and thus are not carrying a valid license until their Bday. Likewise if I were to buy a gun today and show my new license, it would be accepted by the FFL, but would be fraudulent since the license was not valid yet. Good to know.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Not all things are as complicated as we try to make them........................

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:06 pm

This is the response I received:

Although you returned your application after September 1st, you initially applied for your renewal online 8/2/05, so you would not be eligible for a 5-year renewal license.

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:08 pm

Renegade wrote:This is the response I received:

Although you returned your application after September 1st, you initially applied for your renewal online 8/2/05, so you would not be eligible for a 5-year renewal license.

And do we think that DPS is correctly interpreting this law? I know that I already have my doubts about things like the 60 day law (failed it in my case) and other things like that. I have to think that they are smoking something on this - didn't Chas offer to call on your behalf?