The Texas LTC framework and § 411.172 eligibility
The Texas License to Carry is administered by DPS under Gov't Code §§ 411.171-411.208. Section 411.172 establishes the substantive eligibility criteria — age, criminal history, mental capacity, and chemical dependency requirements that an applicant must satisfy to obtain or retain a license.
- Age — § 411.172(a)(1)
- The applicant must be at least 21 years of age. The minimum drops to 18 for active-duty members of the United States armed forces, members serving in the state military forces, and honorably-discharged veterans. The age requirement is calculated as of the date of application, not the date of the qualifying-incident if any. Applicants who turn 21 within months of an LTC application denial can reapply on reaching the age threshold without challenging the denial — but the reapplication itself triggers new background-check exposure.
- Criminal history — § 411.172(a)(3) and (a)(9)
- No felony conviction at any time. No Class A or Class B misdemeanor conviction within the 5 years immediately preceding the application date. Certain enumerated offenses extend the lookback to 10 years. A "conviction" includes a probated or suspended sentence; deferred adjudication that has been successfully completed and discharged is generally NOT a conviction for LTC purposes, with statutory exceptions for certain offenses including family violence. Aguilar addresses the deferred-adjudication treatment in detail. Pending charges (arrest with no disposition) also disqualify under § 411.172(a)(4).
- Protective orders — § 411.172(a)(5)
- No subject to a protective order under Family Code chapter 85, Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.292 (magistrate's emergency order), or comparable order from another jurisdiction. A protective order in effect at the time of application disqualifies; a protective order entered after the LTC issues triggers suspension under § 411.187(a)(2). The protective-order disqualification overlays with the federal 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) firearm prohibition for persons subject to a qualifying domestic-violence protective order — survived facial challenge in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).
- Chemical dependency and psychological capacity — § 411.172(a)(6)-(8)
- No chemical dependency that would prevent safe handling of a handgun. No incapacity arising from psychological or psychiatric condition or treatment that would prevent safe handling. No diagnosis as a chronic alcoholic. These are the most-litigated soft-criteria disqualifications. DPS may rely on reported medical/mental-health records, prior commitments, prior DWI convictions, or any other reliable indication of chemical dependency or psychological incapacity. Affirmative rebuttal evidence — current treatment records, expert assessments, sobriety documentation — is the standard defense response in contested-case hearings on these grounds.
- Administrative ineligibility — § 411.172(a)(10)-(13)
- No defaulted state or federal tax obligation. No delinquent child support. No defaulted student loan guaranteed by the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation. No outstanding payment for fees, court costs, or fines on a Class A misdemeanor or felony case. These purely-administrative grounds can be cured by satisfying the underlying obligation. The cure restores eligibility and supports reapplication under § 411.181 without the need to challenge the substantive grounds.
The LTC framework under Gov't Code §§ 411.171-411.208 is an administrative-law structure with its own procedural and substantive rules, even though many of the underlying disqualifying events are criminal in nature. DPS administers the program through the Regulatory Services Division; the Department of Public Safety as a whole reports to the Public Safety Commission. 37 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 6.11-6.61 are the agency-promulgated rules implementing the statute and govern day-to-day administration: application processing, fingerprinting, training requirements, examination administration, and the contested-case procedures that apply when DPS proposes denial, suspension, or revocation.
The statute itself is the place to start any LTC defense analysis. Section 411.172 sets the substantive eligibility requirements; § 411.180 supplies the appeal procedure; § 411.181 governs reapplication after denial or revocation; § 411.187 details suspension and revocation grounds and procedure; § 411.188 addresses the training and examination requirements; § 411.195 addresses appeal of a SOAH order to district court. Each provision interlocks with the others and with the Penal Code firearm-restriction statutes (§§ 46.02-46.05, 46.035), the Family Code protective-order chapter (chapter 85), and the federal firearm-disqualification statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
Underlying every LTC contested case is a question of evidence. DPS bears the burden of proof on revocation and suspension cases under the contested-case rules. On a denial appeal, the applicant typically bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility — DPS having issued the denial. The Administrative Procedure Act's substantial-evidence standard governs judicial review under § 411.180(f); the Texas Supreme Court in Petta articulated the deferential standard that controls challenges to DPS administrative actions. The defense's task is to develop the record at the SOAH hearing — substantial evidence that the agency could have considered is binding on appellate review, so failure to introduce key documents or expert testimony at the SOAH level often cannot be cured later.
Suspension and revocation under § 411.187
Gov't Code § 411.187 enumerates the grounds for LTC suspension and revocation. Suspension is generally temporary pending resolution of a triggering event; revocation is the permanent cancellation of the license. Both trigger statutory rights to written notice and a SOAH contested-case hearing.
Section 411.187 of the Government Code separates LTC enforcement actions into two categories. Suspension is a temporary status — the license is inactive but not cancelled. Suspension grounds include arrest for any disqualifying offense (Class A misdemeanor, Class B misdemeanor, or felony), being made the subject of a Family Code chapter 85 protective order or a Code Crim. Proc. art. 17.292 magistrate's emergency order, becoming subject to certain administrative orders (e.g., child-support obligor delinquency), and other enumerated events that suggest temporary ineligibility pending resolution. The suspension typically continues until the underlying event is resolved — by acquittal, dismissal, dissolution of the order, or compliance with the administrative obligation.
Revocation is permanent cancellation. Section 411.187(c) enumerates the grounds: conviction of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor in the 5-year lookback (or any felony at any time); final protective order under Family Code chapter 85; chemical-dependency or psychological-incapacity diagnoses; final administrative orders of the relevant character; and enumerated misconduct including unauthorized carrying in prohibited places or providing false information to DPS. Revoked license holders can reapply only under the conditions of § 411.181 — reapplication is permitted only after the disqualifying condition no longer exists, and DPS treats the application as a new application subject to all current eligibility criteria.
The procedural rights on suspension or revocation are critical. Section 411.187(d) requires DPS to provide written notice stating the reasons for the action. The licensee has 30 days from the notice date to request a contested-case hearing. Failure to request the hearing within 30 days waives the right and makes the suspension or revocation final. The 30-day deadline runs from the date of the notice — not from the date the licensee actually received it — and untimely requests are routinely denied. Calendar the deadline immediately on receipt of any DPS adverse-action notice.
The SOAH contested-case hearing operates under the Administrative Procedure Act and the DPS-specific rules at 37 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 6.11-6.61. The hearing is adversarial: DPS counsel presents the agency's case, and the licensee's counsel cross-examines, presents defense witnesses, and offers documentary evidence. The Texas Rules of Evidence apply with administrative-law modifications. The Administrative Law Judge issues a Proposal for Decision (PFD), and DPS issues the final order. Judicial review in district court under § 411.180(f) is available within 30 days of the final order — the substantial-evidence standard under Petta controls.
Common revocation grounds — DWI, family violence, and drug offenses
The most common LTC revocation triggers in DFW practice are DWI convictions (intoxication-related disqualifications under § 411.172(a)(7)), family-violence convictions or protective orders, and drug-related Class A or B misdemeanors. Each triggers a distinct evidentiary and strategic response.
DWI convictions are the most frequent LTC revocation trigger encountered in DFW criminal-defense practice. A Class B DWI conviction (first offense under Penal Code § 49.04) is a Class B misdemeanor that falls within the 5-year lookback of § 411.172(a)(3). It is also independent evidence of chemical dependency under § 411.172(a)(7), and DPS routinely cites both grounds in revocation actions. A Class A DWI conviction (second offense under § 49.09(a)(1) — Class A misdemeanor) extends the disqualification more clearly. A 3rd-degree felony DWI (third or subsequent offense under § 49.09(b)) is a permanent disqualifier as a felony conviction. Defense strategy on the criminal side directly affects the LTC outcome — a successful DWI dismissal or acquittal removes the criminal-history ground entirely, and an intoxication-rehabilitation course of conduct (treatment compliance, sobriety documentation) rebuts the chemical-dependency ground.
Family-violence dispositions create a particularly complex overlay. A Class A or B misdemeanor family-violence conviction triggers revocation under § 411.172(a)(3) within the 5-year lookback. The federal Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) imposes a separate lifetime federal firearm prohibition for any "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" conviction, independent of state law. A final protective order under Family Code chapter 85 triggers revocation under § 411.187(a)(2) and a federal disqualification under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) for the duration of the order. The federal prohibition survived facial challenge in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Deferred adjudication on a family-violence charge is treated as a conviction for federal § 922(g)(9) purposes even if completed successfully — a key trap for plea negotiations.
Drug-offense dispositions vary by penalty group and quantity. A Class A or B misdemeanor possession of marijuana under § 481.121 (or possession of paraphernalia under § 481.125) falls within the 5-year lookback. A state-jail felony possession under § 481.115 (penalty group 1, less than 1 gram) or § 481.116 (penalty group 2) is a permanent felony disqualifier. Federal law disqualifies anyone "addicted to or unlawful user of any controlled substance" under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal restriction operates without state-court conviction and includes habitual marijuana users even in states with legalized recreational use. Recent ATF guidance on Form 4473 question 21(g) treats current marijuana use as disqualifying regardless of state law.
Chemical-dependency revocations require their own evidentiary response. DPS may rely on prior DWI convictions, alcohol-related arrests without conviction, in-patient or out-patient treatment records, or testimony from medical/mental-health providers. The defense response is affirmative — current sobriety documentation, completed treatment programs, expert assessment by a licensed chemical-dependency counselor or psychiatrist that the licensee no longer has a chronic chemical dependency that would prevent safe handling of a handgun. The standard at the SOAH hearing is preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt, and the contested-case record drives both the ALJ's PFD and the substantial-evidence review on appeal.
The § 411.180 SOAH appeal procedure and § 411.181 reapplication
Section 411.180 supplies the contested-case procedure governing both initial denials and revocations. Section 411.181 governs reapplication after denial or revocation — the disqualifying condition must no longer exist and the application is treated as a new application.
Section 411.180 of the Government Code establishes the administrative-appeal procedure for any DPS LTC adverse action — denial of an initial application, denial of a renewal, suspension, or revocation. The procedure is uniform across these categories. Written notice from DPS triggers a 30-day clock; the licensee or applicant must file a written request for a contested-case hearing within that window. The hearing request is filed with DPS, not directly with SOAH; DPS then refers the matter to SOAH for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge. The licensee's counsel may demand expedited scheduling but in practice the hearing is set 60-180 days after the request, depending on SOAH's docket.
Pre-hearing procedure tracks Administrative Procedure Act standards. Discovery is available but more limited than in civil litigation — DPS produces the underlying records on which the adverse action was based, the licensee produces rebuttal documentation and witness lists, and depositions are rare. The licensee's counsel should serve open-records (Tex. Gov't Code chapter 552) requests on DPS for the complete administrative file, including any internal communications, criminal-history printouts, and DPS investigator reports. Pre-hearing briefs are routinely filed to frame the legal issues for the ALJ.
At the hearing, DPS counsel presents the agency's case first on a revocation matter; on a denial appeal, the applicant typically bears the initial burden of demonstrating eligibility. The Texas Rules of Evidence apply with administrative-law modifications — hearsay may be admitted if it is the type of evidence on which reasonable persons commonly rely. Live testimony is preferred; affidavits are permitted but carry less weight on credibility issues. Expert testimony on chemical dependency, psychological capacity, and rehabilitation is the single most common defense investment in contested LTC cases. The licensee should expect cross-examination from DPS counsel and is well-served by direct preparation.
The ALJ issues a Proposal for Decision (PFD) typically 30-90 days after the hearing. DPS reviews the PFD and issues the final order — adopting the PFD in whole, in part, or with modifications under the standards in Gov't Code chapter 2001. Judicial review under § 411.180(f) is available in district court of the county where the applicant resides, within 30 days of the final order. The substantial-evidence standard from Petta applies: the agency's findings of fact will be affirmed if reasonable minds could have reached the same conclusion based on the administrative record. Reversal is rare; the trial-level SOAH record is decisive.
Reapplication after a denial or revocation is governed by Gov't Code § 411.181. The applicant must wait until the disqualifying condition no longer exists — the 5-year lookback period has expired, the felony conviction has been pardoned or otherwise resolved, the protective order has expired, the chemical dependency has been documented as resolved. Reapplication is treated as a new application subject to all current eligibility criteria, including the training and examination requirements. The applicant pays the full application fee. A new criminal-history check is conducted. The reapplication strategy frequently begins during the SOAH hearing — counsel develops rehabilitation evidence not just for the hearing but for the file the applicant will need at reapplication.
Defense strategies — administrative + criminal coordination
LTC defense work requires coordinated administrative and criminal strategies. Pre-revocation hearings, SOAH contested-case discovery, narrow grounds challenges, rehabilitation evidence development, and reapplication strategy all interlock with the underlying criminal-law issues that triggered the DPS action.
Pre-revocation hearing posture is the foundation of every LTC defense. The 30-day deadline under § 411.187(d) for requesting the SOAH hearing is jurisdictional in practical effect — failure to file the timely request makes the suspension or revocation final and forecloses substantive review. Counsel's first task on engagement is to identify the date of the DPS written notice and to file the request within the deadline. The request itself can be brief — a written demand for a contested-case hearing referencing the underlying DPS notice and § 411.180 — but it must be timely.
Narrow-grounds challenges work where DPS has overreached. Section 411.187 enumerates the suspension and revocation grounds; DPS cannot revoke on grounds not enumerated. Common DPS errors include: relying on a deferred-adjudication disposition as a "conviction" without statutory authority (deferred adjudication is generally not a conviction except for the family-violence exception); citing an arrest as a basis for revocation rather than suspension (arrest is a suspension trigger pending resolution, not a revocation ground); applying the 5-year lookback to events outside the window; treating a non-final protective order as a final order; relying on chemical-dependency or psychological-incapacity grounds without supporting medical or psychiatric documentation. Each of these arguments has been litigated in SOAH and Texas appellate practice — Aguilar and other cases supply the analytical framework.
Rehabilitation evidence is the affirmative defense in chemical-dependency and psychological-incapacity cases. Treatment records (in-patient or out-patient programs completed, current participation in support groups), expert assessments (licensed chemical-dependency counselor evaluation, psychiatric assessment), sobriety documentation (drug-test results over a sustained period, employment records, family support letters), and lay-witness testimony from family, employers, and friends combine to rebut the agency's case. The defense investment in expert work — a board-certified addiction medicine physician or a forensic psychologist — frequently determines the outcome at the SOAH hearing and on substantial-evidence review.
Coordinated criminal-defense work directly affects the LTC outcome. A pending DWI charge that resolves in acquittal or dismissal removes the criminal-history ground from the LTC analysis. A successful pretrial motion to suppress in a drug case may produce a dismissal that eliminates the LTC trigger. A negotiated plea to a non-disqualifying offense (e.g., obstruction of a passageway rather than drug possession) protects the LTC. The criminal-defense and administrative-defense tracks must be coordinated — the criminal-side outcome determines the available administrative-side defenses. In DFW practice this typically means a single defense team handling both proceedings, or close coordination between separate counsel.
Reapplication strategy under § 411.181 begins long before the eligibility window opens. The defense develops rehabilitation evidence during the SOAH proceeding (whether or not the SOAH challenge succeeds) and continues to document the licensee's post-incident conduct. Letters of support, employment records, continued treatment compliance, community involvement, and absence of new criminal contacts all support the eventual reapplication. The reapplication is treated as a new application — the applicant must complete the training and examination requirements, pass a new background check, and pay the full fee. A well-prepared reapplication package frequently succeeds where the underlying revocation could not be successfully challenged.
Post-HB 1927 utility of the LTC
HB 1927's 2021 Constitutional Carry amendment to Penal Code § 46.02 did not eliminate the LTC. The license still confers interstate reciprocity, federal background-check exemptions, and certain situational privileges that unlicensed carry does not.
HB 1927's 2021 amendment to Penal Code § 46.02 fundamentally changed the legal landscape for handgun carry in Texas. Before September 1, 2021, any person carrying a handgun in public without an LTC committed a Class A misdemeanor under § 46.02. After the amendment, any person 21 or older who is not otherwise prohibited under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) or specific Texas firearm-disqualification provisions may carry a handgun in a holster in public without a license. The change took effect September 1, 2021, and applies prospectively — pre-September 2021 unlicensed-carry convictions remain on records.
But the LTC framework under Gov't Code §§ 411.171-411.208 remained fully intact. The Legislature did not repeal the licensing program — it created a parallel structure where licensed and unlicensed carry coexist, each with its own privileges and restrictions. License holders retain a meaningful set of advantages that unlicensed carriers do not have: interstate reciprocity with approximately 36 states under § 411.173 (subject to ongoing changes as other states modify their reciprocity laws); exemption from the federal Brady Act background check on FFL purchases under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(B); statutory protection from criminal-trespass prosecution on certain premises where unlicensed carriers may face § 30.07 (open-carry trespass) or § 30.06 (concealed-carry trespass) violations; and certain enumerated privileges that vary by setting.
License holders also remain subject to § 46.035 — the License-Holder Violations statute. Section 46.035(a) is a Class A misdemeanor for a license holder to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry in a manner calculated to alarm. Subsection (b) creates additional offenses for carrying in prohibited places including premises where alcohol sales constitute 51% or more of gross receipts, correctional facilities, polling places on election day, court premises, government meetings, hospitals (where signage given), and others. Subsection (d) — carrying while intoxicated — is a 3rd-degree felony, the most severe license-holder restriction. These restrictions apply to license holders even though unlicensed carriers carrying under post-HB 1927 § 46.02 face a different set of restrictions.
The strategic implications for clients shifted but did not disappear. A client who is otherwise law-abiding may now carry without an LTC in most situations — eliminating one motivation to obtain the license. But for clients who travel frequently to other states, who purchase frequently from FFL dealers, who carry in mixed commercial settings, or who simply want documented evidence of completed training and DPS background-check clearance, the LTC remains a meaningful asset. Defense work in LTC denial and revocation cases continues to be relevant — and the LTC system's administrative-law structure remains the same.
Local DFW practice — DPS regional offices and SOAH venue
DPS administers LTC matters through regional offices serving Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties. SOAH contested-case hearings on DFW-area LTC matters are typically conducted at the SOAH Dallas regional office. Judicial review under § 411.180(f) lies in district court of the applicant's county of residence.
The DPS Regulatory Services Division administers LTC applications, renewals, suspensions, and revocations through regional offices. The North Texas region serving Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, and surrounding counties is administered out of Garland and Dallas DPS facilities. Applications and renewal submissions can be filed online through the DPS portal or in person at a DPS field office. Fingerprinting is conducted by IdentoGO at certified providers throughout DFW. The DPS-promulgated training and examination requirements under § 411.188 are administered by DPS-certified instructors and can be completed online for the classroom portion since 2020.
DPS adverse-action notices on DFW-area license holders are issued from the Austin headquarters and processed through the regional office of record. The 30-day deadline for requesting a SOAH hearing runs from the notice date — not from the date the licensee receives the notice in their mailbox. DFW-area counsel routinely confirms the notice date via direct DPS contact and via the DPS file in the open-records request, because the notice date controls jurisdictional timing.
SOAH conducts contested-case hearings on LTC matters through its regional offices. The Dallas regional office handles most DFW-area LTC hearings. SOAH ALJs are independent of DPS and bring administrative-law expertise to LTC matters; experienced LTC defense counsel know which ALJs handle most of the LTC docket and the procedural preferences each ALJ applies. Hearings are scheduled 60-180 days after the request. Pre-hearing briefing, witness lists, and exhibit exchanges follow the SOAH procedural rules under 1 Tex. Admin. Code chapter 155.
Judicial review under § 411.180(f) lies in district court of the county where the applicant resides. For DFW-area applicants this is typically district court in Collin, Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant County. The substantial-evidence standard from Petta controls. The defense must develop a complete administrative record at the SOAH level — substantial-evidence review will not consider evidence outside the administrative record, and failure to introduce expert testimony or documentary evidence at SOAH cannot be cured on appeal. Successful district-court reversals of DPS adverse actions are uncommon and almost always involve procedural defects or clear legal-error rulings at the SOAH level.
When to retain counsel
LTC matters benefit from counsel at the earliest stage — initial denial review, suspension notices, revocation notices, and coordinated criminal-defense work where the underlying incident triggers both proceedings. The 30-day SOAH hearing deadline is non-negotiable.
The clearest trigger for retaining LTC defense counsel is receipt of a DPS written notice — denial of an initial application, denial of a renewal, suspension notice, or revocation notice. Each notice triggers the 30-day deadline under § 411.180 for requesting a contested-case hearing. Counsel's first task is to confirm the notice date, calendar the deadline, and prepare the written hearing request. Late requests are routinely denied — even by one day — and the underlying adverse action becomes final. Engaging counsel within the first week of receipt allows for substantive case development, document preservation, and witness identification before the hearing-request deadline.
Pending criminal charges that may trigger LTC consequences are another clear retention trigger. A pending DWI, drug-possession, family-violence, or weapons charge has direct LTC implications under § 411.172(a). Coordinated criminal-defense and administrative-defense planning can frequently prevent the LTC issue from arising in the first place — through negotiated dismissal, acquittal, or plea to a non-disqualifying offense. The criminal-defense strategy that protects the LTC may differ from the strategy that simply minimizes criminal exposure; clients with LTC interests at stake should disclose that fact early so the defense plan accounts for both fronts.
Reapplication after a prior denial or revocation is the third common engagement trigger. Section 411.181 reapplication is treated as a new application — the applicant must satisfy all current eligibility criteria, complete the training and examination requirements, pay the full fee, and pass a new background check. The DPS-side review of a reapplication is more scrutinizing than a first-time application, and counsel's role in preparing the reapplication package (documenting that the disqualifying condition no longer exists, assembling rehabilitation evidence, anticipating DPS objections) frequently determines whether the reapplication succeeds.
L and L Law Group represents LTC applicants and license holders in DFW administrative proceedings — denial appeals, suspension challenges, revocation defense, SOAH contested-case hearings, district-court judicial review, and coordinated criminal-defense work. Our team understands how the LTC administrative framework interlocks with the Penal Code firearm restrictions, federal § 922(g) overlays, and the criminal cases that frequently trigger LTC consequences. Initial consultation is free; flat-fee structures are available for most LTC matters and integrate with criminal-defense fee arrangements where the underlying criminal case is also handled by the firm.
