*UPDATE* Additional forms for pistol permits sigh

[MrP 81]

*UPDATE* Today (May 24th) I got a call saying my PP's were ready to be picked up! No extra form, nor the interview the chief was going to use in place of it. Hopefully this is a permanent change!

 

I stopped in to my local pd last Friday to pick up an app for some pistol permits and was given the usual state forms and one additional form. The extra one asked where I'd lived the last 10 years, the names of people who live with me under 18, if I rent or own my home etc. I'll upload to copy of the form for the compliancy project as soon as I get a chance. I received my FPID and 1st PP from the same pd about 4 months ago, though it was no easy task. I turned in the state forms yesterday and when the woman who handles firearms asked me to complete the other form I politely told her I refused, she looked shocked and ask me to write on the form that I was refusing to complete it so it didn't appear as though she forgot to give it to me, which I did. We completed the process and I left, thanking her for her help. Today (Wednesday) I found out from a trusted source that the chief says I do not need to complete the additional form, but he will deny my application if I don't. Sigh. I left a message for the LT in charge of NJSP Firearms, and plan to withdraw my app so it isn't denied (I don't want to have to check "yes" to being denied a permit on applications in the future.)

The chief has been exceptionally rude to me in the past, so although I plan to meet with him personally, I expect he will say something akin to "I'm not saying you have to fill it out, you don't. But it may hinder our investigation into your credibility".

I'm in between lectures at the moment, sorry for the poor formatting or grammar.

Thoughts, comments, concerns?

[deviated rationality 4]

I'd talk to a lawyer, and have the chief (or his secretary, I suppose) issue a written statement as to the purpose and reason behind the extra form. I'd also have the request come directly from your lawyer, with a notice of a possible lawsuit in regards to the infringement of your privacy (and the privacy of others that would potentially be involved), 2AR, and various other laws that "require" this process to be completed within 30 days (which we all know never happens). The amount of "investigating" they keep trying to do, there is no way they can complete it in under 30 days, meaning that they technically can't create anything (forms or investigative research) that would create even more back log than they already have. Also, I would like to see whether or not this new form was approved by an judge or other law governing official; especially since the Chief doesn't create policy for civilians, he enforces it, as far as I know. I could be wrong, but it sounds like he is trying to govern over civilians instead of the police force.

[theRU 33]

is this a conversation that you are allowed to videotape? I'd be curious to see what would happen if you walked into this meeting with a hidden camera.

[Tom-NJ2AS 31]

Please contact Bob Barush at [email protected]

 

Email us a copy of the form as soon as you can.

 

Gentlemen, this is the exact reason why we started Operation Establish Compliance.

 

http://nj2as.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35&Itemid=11

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Operation-Establish-Compliance/201522133206805#!/pages/Operation-Establish-Compliance/201522133206805

 

 

Please visit our site and spread the word. We need support. We will have a report on the status of OEC at the April meeting in Winslow. Check our website for info.

 

The NJ2AS is here to help so please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Thanks

 

Tom

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

You can audio tape it legally (your iphone has an app for this) because NJ has a 1 party law meaning as long as either you or him have to know you are recording. You will know... so its legal. Only third party recording is illegal (planting a mic).

 

I would double check that, however thats what I read last time.

[MrP 81]

Thanks for the responses, I will hopefully know more by tomorrow. I'll be in touch with NJ2AS shortly.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Good for you!! Did the NJSP firearms unit respond to your call? When you meet with the chief, make sure you have the cite:

 

This requirement is in direct contravention of 2C:58-3,f which states, in part: There shall be no conditions or requirements added to the form or content of the application, or required by the licensing authority for the issuance of a permit or identification card, other than those that are specifically set forth in this chapter.

 

Make sure you get in touch with Bob. They have been able to correct some of these overzealous PD's with just a phone call. Good luck, keep us in the loop.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

[MrP 81]

I'll be meeting with the chief in 20, will update when I'm back.

 

Also Glenn, I think that only applies to cellphone/telephone calls. I could be wrong, but I checked up on it and that's how I understood it. I'll bring a pad and paper.

[bry@n 195]

good luck. Keep us posted. bc

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I'll be meeting with the chief in 20, will update when I'm back.

 

Also Glenn, I think that only applies to cellphone/telephone calls. I could be wrong, but I checked up on it and that's how I understood it. I'll bring a pad and paper.

NJ is a one party consent state like mentioned before, it doesn't matter what form of taping, phone calls, video, tape recorder... As long as one person with in the conversation knows its being recorded its fine. I dont believe we have anything in place in regards to private or public locations either, but if your in a PD your on public property, and in NJ i believe being on public property grants you zero privacy rights.

[MrP 81]

Spoke with the Chief just now, he was very polite. He explained to me that when he first created the application the NJSP told him it was fine. I showed him the pages from the State Judiciary website, explaining 2C:58-3,f. He told me that he had contacted NJSP for clarification and I told him that I had done the same. He took my number and said he would call when the SP responded to him. He also told me that if the NJSP tells him the form is not appropriate, he would have no qualms eliminating it with the addendum that the detective in charge would simply ask these questions when you apply.

 

It was a good talk, and I was impressed with his open-mindedness.

 

Updates to follow.

 

 

-- I realize I haven't provided much information about the town and chief's name, when this is resolved I'll clarify it all.

[MrP 81]

UPDATE

 

The chief just called me and explained that the NJSP said the form is not allowed as part of the "investigation". He told me that a detective will now have to go to each applicant's home and ask them the same question on the form. I hope I misinterpreted his tone but it sounded as though he believed I was placing a large burden on the town/pd/taxpayers, but no one except for the Chief decided this was necessary in the first place. It seems like a lateral move at worst, in that the questions have moved from paper to oral discussion. I'll let you know if anything changes.

[BRaptor 68]

Wow, I can't believe the chief is going to blame you for his own ridiculous requirements. It's the chief's call as to what the detective does to "investigate" each applicant...so it's his own fault.

 

And about the 1-party or 2-party consent for recording issue, I don't think that applies to interactions with public officials acting in their official capacity. It's a constitutional thing and the desire to have openness in the government and public official accountability. I haven't looked into this closely, but that's my impression.

[Malsua 1,422]

UPDATE

 

The chief just called me and explained that the NJSP said the form is not allowed as part of the "investigation". He told me that a detective will now have to go to each applicant's home and ask them the same question on the form. I hope I misinterpreted his tone but it sounded as though he believed I was placing a large burden on the town/pd/taxpayers, but no one except for the Chief decided this was necessary in the first place. It seems like a lateral move at worst, in that the questions have moved from paper to oral discussion. I'll let you know if anything changes.

 

He was nice to you at first because he figured you were wrong and he was right.

 

When the State Police correct his misconceptions, he needed to figure out how to still do the wrong thing and blame you for it.

 

Forget ever getting a permit in a timely manner, you're marked

[Sigman 41]

All I can say is WOW!! Talking about one "above the law" abusing power and tax payer money. Real nice - a spiteful chief who needs to get his way at the expense of others. He should be proud of himself - NOT!

 

Congrats on trying to stand up for your rights. I'm sure glad I live in a normal town.

[SpecialK 193]

did you contact the NJSP and ask them about the oral interview? This is still added conditions and requirements being added to the process. I cannot seeing this being legal either.

[MrP 81]

did you contact the NJSP and ask them about the oral interview? This is still added conditions and requirements being added to the process. I cannot seeing this being legal either.

 

That was my thought also, not sure what I'll do.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

The "investigation" has always been what local PD's hide behind when called to task about their interpretations of the procedures needed to obtain a FPID or P2P. I find it interesting that the NJSP agreed that, by including the extra requirements as a form, they have violated the criteria of "added content or form". However, it is clear to me that what constitures an investigation needs to be spelled out either by statute or the Administrative Code.

 

Without an exact definition of what the "investigation" is supposed to consist, local PD's can tie-up someone's application ad infinitum under the guise of, "We're still conducting the investigation." The NJSP Guide says that the investigation is to be conducted to insure that the applicant meets the criteria established for issuance of the permit, which, in my estimation, gives the local PD's (and the NJSP) way too much latitude. It needs to be spelled-out specifically what sources are to be be used to obtain what information. Between the mental health check, the criminal background check and the DL check a persons eligibility can be easily established without going out into the community and informing your friends and neighbors that you want to buy a gun.

 

Part of my goal is to eliminate the references altogether. It is highly unlikely that an applicant is going to list someone as a reference who will torpedo their chances, so basically they are just lip-service and a convenient way for the PD to stall approval.

 

I thank you, MrP, for standing-up and putting your local PD on notice.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[PK90 3,573]

Sounds like the OP's Chief has no balls. Does he answer to the NJSP? Apparently he thinks so.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Videotape the whole interview process

[siderman 1,139]

So is it like the OP was the first applicant in his town to be handed this extra form? Either it was newly impemented or nobody else cared.

[Jon 264]

I would sit down with the Mayor and inform him that due to the Chief being stubborn about the "requirements" it will cost additional manpower, and ultimately taxpayer dollars, to continue this practice.

[djg0770 481]

Videotape the whole interview process

 

And in an obvious way too. Setup the camera on a tripod in the center of the room, hand the cop a mic. When he asks why: So you can use the evidence in court when they deny your application...

[MrP 81]

Updated, bump.

[hmmjak 2]

Maybe you should mention the town? If there were others waiting on their FID,PP, etc. they could now possibly call and get that settled.

[HuntingPaper 62]

Maybe you should mention the town? If there were others waiting on their FID,PP, etc. they could now possibly call and get that settled.

 

+1

[MrP 81]

Maybe you should mention the town? If there were others waiting on their FID,PP, etc. they could now possibly call and get that settled.

 

The chief told me that while others had complained, eventually everyone aside from me completed the forms so I don't think anyone is currently waiting. Bernards Township PD.

[LorenzoS 100]

MrP, hank you very, very much for standing up and doing the right thing here. It was a real service to our community. The state is able to get away with this crap through intimidation and threat of worse treatment for making waves. Most people cave in and go along to get along. It takes strong individuals willing to stand up and not take it any more in order to get change.

[hmmjak 2]

The chief told me that while others had complained, eventually everyone aside from me completed the forms so I don't think anyone is currently waiting. Bernards Township PD.

 

you never know. just cause they were willing to jump through all the hoops doesn't mean once they were done they did not have to wait any longer and got their FID/PP faster than towns without these extra forms. there is a person here who had to sign a release form for a credit history check. (i know... what the f?????) and still had to wait 80+ days

 

 

edit: oh and thank you. to you and nj2as. hopefully somewhere down the line we can actually have a uniform way of applying for these IDs and actually end all the unnecessary delays.

[ChrisJM981 924]

Yea the town in which I reside wants access to credit reports. I'm going to apply for more permits this week so I'll kindly inform the chief he's breaking the law if they push the matter. Last time I didn't fill it out and I got my permits in under a 4 weeks though. I think he's knows it's BS, but they use it as a deterrent for people applying for FPID & PPP. Bad credit? You can't own a firearm with bad credit! What legal purpose could someone with bad credit have for a firearm??