Join TexasGunTalk

FINALLY! The 2006 CHL Conviction rates are out

Discussion in 'Texas Concealed Handgun (CHL)' started by DoubleActionCHL, Aug 5, 2008.

  1. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,572
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    Spring, Texas
  2. JKTex

    JKTex Well-Known

    2,018
    1
    38
    Mar 11, 2008
    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
     
  3. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,572
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    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.
     
  4. JKTex

    JKTex Well-Known

    2,018
    1
    38
    Mar 11, 2008
    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
     
  5. Kerbouchard

    Kerbouchard Member

    133
    0
    16
    Jun 18, 2008
    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?
     
  6. Joat

    Joat Active Member

    357
    0
    16
    Apr 28, 2008
    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
     
  7. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,572
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    Spring, Texas
    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.
     
  8. Kerbouchard

    Kerbouchard Member

    133
    0
    16
    Jun 18, 2008
    Dallas
    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

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

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    13,172
    306
    83
    May 28, 2008
    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.
     
  10. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,572
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    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.
     


Share This Page