FINALLY! The 2006 CHL Conviction rates are out

JKTex

Well-Known
Mar 11, 2008
2,018
38
DFW, North Texas
Unless it's changed, I'm not impressed with the stats. Not the result but the way and what they report. It's very misleading. For example, crimes committed data include everything and most have nothing to do with a CHL, hand gun or anything related. It makes the "numbers" an easy target for those that don't look at what the numbers are.

Now, I'll go look and hopefully they changed (ya right! ) :D
 

DoubleActionCHL

Well-Known
Jun 23, 2008
1,572
36
Spring, Texas
Nope. They haven't changed their method of compiling and reporting. In 2005, CHL holders made up about 0.37% of all applicable convictions. The 2006 number is about 0.227%.

At the very least, I would like to see them separate misdemeanor from felony grade convictions. Lumping them together seems arbitrary and the numbers aren't terribly meaningful. I'd also like to see the convictions of CHL holders vs. the total number of license holders.

Aside from that, the ratio is a little better, although the number of overall convictions has increased. There were 140 CHL convictions in 2006 vs. the 129 CHL convictions in 2005. Without some reference to the overall number of license holders, this number isn't meaningful, either.
 

JKTex

Well-Known
Mar 11, 2008
2,018
38
DFW, North Texas
Ya, it's more accurate to say it's a CHL holder character test. And nothing to do with how CHL holders handle the responsibility of carrying a handgun. I'm not sure what the states intention is for it though. It's fairly irrelevant, but it gives someone a state job to earn a paycheck with. :D
 

Kerbouchard

Member
Jun 18, 2008
133
16
Dallas
The thing about it that I don't like is that the numbers imply that they are all separate charges, when in fact, one CHL holder could have been responsible for 10 of the charges.

As far as per capita, CHL holders have a much lower per capita conviction rate than unlicensed citizens.

One thing I am curious about, is how the heck did a CHL holder get convicted of unlawful possession of body armor by a felon?
 

Joat

Active Member
Apr 28, 2008
379
18
Kenefick, TX
One thing to keep in mind while reviewing the stats is WHO asked for the stats to be kept in the first place.
The requirement for these statistics to be kept, and for what statistics were to be kept, were included by those opposed to concealed carry in the state while the legislation was being drafted.
In my opinion, the methodology of collection and reporting of the statistics was very carefully outlined so that results could be presented in a negative way.

Joat
 

DoubleActionCHL

Well-Known
Jun 23, 2008
1,572
36
Spring, Texas
The thing about it that I don't like is that the numbers imply that they are all separate charges, when in fact, one CHL holder could have been responsible for 10 of the charges.

As far as per capita, CHL holders have a much lower per capita conviction rate than unlicensed citizens.

One thing I am curious about, is how the heck did a CHL holder get convicted of unlawful possession of body armor by a felon?
That's a very good point. The stats simply tally convictions, not citizens or CHL holders convicted.

What statistics do you think would be relevant and fair? Personally, I think felony convictions should be segregated from misdemeanor. For misdemeanor convictions, we should only include those that are Class A and B, and directly weapons related.

The ratio of non-CHL holders convicted of these violations vs. the number of CHL holders, irrespective of the number of convictions, should be used. We're talking about people, not individual crimes. Then, I'd like to see the ratio of CHL holders convicted of these violations vs. total license holders.
 

Kerbouchard

Member
Jun 18, 2008
133
16
Dallas
That's a very good point. The stats simply tally convictions, not citizens or CHL holders convicted.

What statistics do you think would be relevant and fair? Personally, I think felony convictions should be segregated from misdemeanor. For misdemeanor convictions, we should only include those that are Class A and B, and directly weapons related.

The ratio of non-CHL holders convicted of these violations vs. the number of CHL holders, irrespective of the number of convictions, should be used. We're talking about people, not individual crimes. Then, I'd like to see the ratio of CHL holders convicted of these violations vs. total license holders.
The stats that I would consider 'fair', or at least balanced, would be the number of CHL's that were revoked based on illegal activity by the license holder vs how many license holders there are. I guess even if the number was 6 per year, the anti's could make a case that it was 6 too many. So, I guess the only thing I would request is that the per capita rates be included, and the dual or multiple charges somehow noted.

As far as CHL holders vs capita, here is what Chas over at Tx CHL Forum has...


http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17975
Overall - The general population over age 21 is over 7 times as likely to commit any offense listed by DPS as are CHLs

Assault - The general population over age 21 is over 8 times as likely to commit an assault as are CHLs

Burglary - The general population over age 21 is over 38 times as likely to commit a burglary as are CHLs

Prohibited Weapons - The general population over age 21 is over 21 times as likely to be convicted of possessing prohibited weapons as are CHLs

Robbery - The general population over age 21 is over 63 times as likely to commit a robbery as are CHLs

He also has a spreadsheet over at his original post outlining how the information was gathered, etc.
 

txinvestigator

TGT Addict
May 28, 2008
14,119
113
Ft Worth, TX
23 CHLers were convicted of UCW. Since a CHLer cannot be convicted of UCW for carrying a handgun, those must be for illegal knives and clubs.

So much for the theory that a CHL allows the carry of illegal knives and clubs.

A CHLer who carries where he is prohibited from carrying would be charged under that law; for example, 46.03 (places weapons prohibited) 46.035 (Unlawful Carry of a handgun by a license holder) 30.06 (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN) .

The only instance I could think of where a license holder could be charged with UCW for ONLY having a handgun would be if he failed to carry the license when carrying. 23 of em though?

What I cannot figure out is how 12 people who did not have CHLs were convicted of Unlawful Carry of a handgun by a license holder. Seems impossible.
 

DoubleActionCHL

Well-Known
Jun 23, 2008
1,572
36
Spring, Texas
I realize it's a technicality, but a CHL Holder can be charged with UCW if he carries while suspended. It it quite possible that they are including these in their tally.
 

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
Texas Gun Forum Ad
silencers
third coast
Ranier
Tyrant Designs
DK Firearms

Forum statistics

Threads
95,329
Messages
2,116,737
Members
30,374
Latest member
Hamster1
Top Bottom