Do We Sometimes Shoot Ourselves in the Foot?

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a very black & white kind of guy. If the law specifically states how something should be done, then that's how it should be done, end of story.

 

Here it comes.....

 

BUT, lately I'm wondering if our rigid stance on some issues isn't slowing down the process. Two examples:

 

1) The current thread about a municipality requiring a pay stub with your application. Technically it is an added requirement and thus against the statute. Practically, this has the effect of speeding-up the process by making employment verification much easier and less time consuming. No need for the call to your employer and tracking down a HR person to verify, and worse yet wondering why the PD wants to know.

 

2) Reference letters - As most departments handle it these can be justified under the investagative requirement - not the content of the letters (which I usually disagree with), but the concept. What I mean by "most departments" is that the detective that does the investigation sends out the letters to the references indicated on your application. My township chooses to do it differently. When you get the paperwork (whether hardcopy or on-line) for the application process, you also get two reference questionaires. It is up to you, the applicant, to give them to your references and return the completed letters with your application. Again, technically, an additional requirement and thus illegal. Practically, it speeds things up greatly and eliminates the angst producing "I wonder if my references received/sent back the forms yet" complex.

 

Just to show you that I am not a hypocrite, I did go a couple rounds, "correspondencewise", with the township solicitor & CLEO, but the lawyer's opinion was that they (the twp) were within the bounds of the law - had to agreee to disagree.

 

I understand that even though the examples given actually are to our benefit they really shouldn't be allowed as they set a precedent. While these may be good for us, what's to stop the next "additional requirements" from being detrimental?

 

Curious as to what you think and how hard should we push back - if at all? Interested in other examples of this same phenomena. What say you?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[djg0770 481]

With regard to the pay stub, I would redact information from it.

 

 

They don't need to know how much I make, how many deductions I have, etc. A big black magic marker would make short work of eliminating unnecessary information. This way they can get employer, date of pay stub, maybe even leave the ssn on there but beyond that, it's proof of employment, not proof of adequate wages in order to own a gun. Therefore, give them the proper information to do their job, but no more than is absolutely required. At least that's my opinion.

[SpecialK 193]

If the two options were optional then I wouldn't see a problem with them at all as they would not be required, but merely an option to speed up the process.

[RecessedFilter 222]

With regard to the pay stub, I would redact information from it.They don't need to know how much I make, how many deductions I have, etc. A big black magic marker would make short work of eliminating unnecessary information. This way they can get employer, date of pay stub, maybe even leave the ssn on there but beyond that, it's proof of employment, not proof of adequate wages in order to own a gun. Therefore, give them the proper information to do their job, but no more than is absolutely required. At least that's my opinion.

 

That is what I plan on doing for my PP application.

 

If the two options were optional then I wouldn't see a problem with them at all as they would not be required, but merely an option to speed up the process.

 

I fully agree with you.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a very black & white kind of guy. If the law specifically states how something should be done, then that's how it should be done, end of story.

 

Here it comes.....

 

BUT, lately I'm wondering if our rigid stance on some issues isn't slowing down the process. Two examples:

 

1) The current thread about a municipality requiring a pay stub with your application. Technically it is an added requirement and thus against the statute. Practically, this has the effect of speeding-up the process by making employment verification much easier and less time consuming. No need for the call to your employer and tracking down a HR person to verify, and worse yet wondering why the PD wants to know.

 

2) Reference letters - As most departments handle it these can be justified under the investagative requirement - not the content of the letters (which I usually disagree with), but the concept. What I mean by "most departments" is that the detective that does the investigation sends out the letters to the references indicated on your application. My township chooses to do it differently. When you get the paperwork (whether hardcopy or on-line) for the application process, you also get two reference questionaires. It is up to you, the applicant, to give them to your references and return the completed letters with your application. Again, technically, an additional requirement and thus illegal. Practically, it speeds things up greatly and eliminates the angst producing "I wonder if my references received/sent back the forms yet" complex.

 

Just to show you that I am not a hypocrite, I did go a couple rounds, "correspondencewise", with the township solicitor & CLEO, but the lawyer's opinion was that they (the twp) were within the bounds of the law - had to agreee to disagree.

 

I understand that even though the examples given actually are to our benefit they really shouldn't be allowed as they set a precedent. While these may be good for us, what's to stop the next "additional requirements" from being detrimental?

 

Curious as to what you think and how hard should we push back - if at all? Interested in other examples of this same phenomena. What say you?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

the problem to me is compliance to the point where we accept unnecessary nonsense..

 

YES pay stub is actually helpful in the way you pointed out.. but the truth of the matter is where I work is moot to my background check..

 

I am a criminal.. or I am not.. and that should be the entire scope of the back ground check.. this where you work ****.. who lives with you.. and all that other nonsense should not even be on the table.. and that is what I find frustrating..

[Duppie 73]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a very black & white kind of guy. If the law specifically states how something should be done, then that's how it should be done, end of story.

 

Here it comes.....

 

BUT, lately I'm wondering if our rigid stance on some issues isn't slowing down the process. Two examples:

 

1) The current thread about a municipality requiring a pay stub with your application. Technically it is an added requirement and thus against the statute. Practically, this has the effect of speeding-up the process by making employment verification much easier and less time consuming. No need for the call to your employer and tracking down a HR person to verify, and worse yet wondering why the PD wants to know.

 

2) Reference letters - As most departments handle it these can be justified under the investagative requirement - not the content of the letters (which I usually disagree with), but the concept. What I mean by "most departments" is that the detective that does the investigation sends out the letters to the references indicated on your application. My township chooses to do it differently. When you get the paperwork (whether hardcopy or on-line) for the application process, you also get two reference questionaires. It is up to you, the applicant, to give them to your references and return the completed letters with your application. Again, technically, an additional requirement and thus illegal. Practically, it speeds things up greatly and eliminates the angst producing "I wonder if my references received/sent back the forms yet" complex.

 

Just to show you that I am not a hypocrite, I did go a couple rounds, "correspondencewise", with the township solicitor & CLEO, but the lawyer's opinion was that they (the twp) were within the bounds of the law - had to agreee to disagree.

 

I understand that even though the examples given actually are to our benefit they really shouldn't be allowed as they set a precedent. While these may be good for us, what's to stop the next "additional requirements" from being detrimental?

 

Curious as to what you think and how hard should we push back - if at all? Interested in other examples of this same phenomena. What say you?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I think that to acquiesce to what amounts to a marginally legal request for the sake of expediency is a slippery slope. We have all but given up on the 30 day mandate and now consider ourselves lucky to receive permits in less than a year in some townships. What precedent for approval or denial will be set next ?Political affiliation,schooling,children in the household?

I'm aware some will scoff and claim that they will never get away with it but how many said years ago that you would not be limited to what or how many firearms you would be allowed to buy? "That's unAmerican"

[axeman_g 128]

People go along to make things easier for others, with no return for them. Is it really going to speed the process up? I have no faith that their statement will of fact will pan out. Why are the 30day limits not being adherred to? Is it because of too many demands being made for paperwork... BS.

 

I just ranted in the other thread about going along with needless requests. I hate that my town requires a notary now... which I arqued with the CofPD with and the mayor this past summer. But we found a way around it... the twp employees will perform it for people when they drop off the forms and sign them there.

 

If the towns really wanted to solve the issues and save the money... remove the FID and PPP obligation. No more problems, let the FBI handle it. Done.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a very black & white kind of guy. If the law specifically states how something should be done, then that's how it should be done, end of story.

 

 

I understand that even though the examples given actually are to our benefit they really shouldn't be allowed as they set a precedent. While these may be good for us, what's to stop the next "additional requirements" from being detrimental?

 

Curious as to what you think and how hard should we push back - if at all? Interested in other examples of this same phenomena. What say you?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

To me there is a problem. We were founded on the ideas the Government should be weaker then the people.Government by the people. And the Govt should stay out of our buisness.

Govt should be penned in and restricted by us always. But as govt's inherently do over time they add layer after layer of rules restricting people and what they can and cant do. As each generation passes the next assumes this is normal as it's been that way there whole lives.In my life I've seen it with seat belt laws and smoking laws and even freaking light bulbs. Each law restricting us started small and was expanded over time. Seat belts were originally not required then required but only a ticketed offence if you were stopped for something else. Now they wait for you on the off ramps with ticket books in hand.

This is how Govt creeps into your everyday life in ways it shouldn't. But we have become accustomed to them looking into our cars under the pretence of protecting us from ourselves.

 

So with each generation govt restricts there freedom more and more.And we have been programed to except it. No I think this whole mess we call gun laws here in the peoples republic has gone way way to far.

How do you think our founders would react to todays America. They had no taxes no central bank(They hated the idea of a federal reserve bank.To much power) wanted us to never inject ourselves to wars outside of the continent.

I think they would be sick beyond belief at what happened to there dream.

Rant over.LOL

[NicePants 58]

I agree with everyone here saying that if they want a speedier process, they should do away with the employment bull****. It isn't relevent in the grand scheme of things. The first thing they should be looking to do is get rid of these goddamn ancient laws. How hard would it honestly be to have an FPID also function as a pistol purchasing permit? Get one when you're 18, then when you're 21, all you'll have to do is show a dealer that and some other photo ID and have them run the NICS at the point of sale. It's not that ****ing hard, New Jersey. You're just wasting your time and ours with all this crap.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

This as Bob brought up as alternatives to help speed up the current process and voluntary while we have this process, that is until a NICS check is all that is needed I don't have a problem with.

 

Something that will help is fine for now, but we also don't want to get into a slippery slope of well you do this now, let add this down the road either.

[Dan 177]

IMHO, we shouldn't allow for any additional steps, paperwork, processes, requirements beyond what the statutes call for. Adding on "optional" processes in exchange for preferential or expedited processing is going down the wrong path. They could use this as blackmail to get what they want... I can see it now "No paystub, it will take an additional 3 months for us to verify xyz". Next they will ask for your last W-2, at risk of further delays if you do not comply. As with so many what they call "reasonable" actions regarding gun laws...the 'give an inch take a mile' saying comes to mind.

 

Many municipalities are already ignoring the strict time-frames as stated in the statutes. Without a form of punishment, they will continue to do this, along with continuing attempts to add on to the process. I continue to find it hypocritical that when citizens break our gun law statutes, they are facing serious criminal charges. When the govt breaks the rules, nothing happens.

[Knuckle Sandwich 5]

Did I miss something? It's been a few years since I applied for a PPP, but I don't remember an employment verification requirement??? Also, anyone have a link to the thread in question regarding the pay stub?

[Damjan 73]

Some townships in Hunterdon county require it now , dont know about the rest of NJ...

 

here is the link

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/29167-yet-again-a-new-requirement-for-ppsfid/

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a very black & white kind of guy. If the law specifically states how something should be done, then that's how it should be done, end of story.

 

Here it comes.....

 

BUT, lately I'm wondering if our rigid stance on some issues isn't slowing down the process. Two examples:

 

1) The current thread about a municipality requiring a pay stub with your application. Technically it is an added requirement and thus against the statute. Practically, this has the effect of speeding-up the process by making employment verification much easier and less time consuming. No need for the call to your employer and tracking down a HR person to verify, and worse yet wondering why the PD wants to know.

 

2) Reference letters - As most departments handle it these can be justified under the investagative requirement - not the content of the letters (which I usually disagree with), but the concept. What I mean by "most departments" is that the detective that does the investigation sends out the letters to the references indicated on your application. My township chooses to do it differently. When you get the paperwork (whether hardcopy or on-line) for the application process, you also get two reference questionaires. It is up to you, the applicant, to give them to your references and return the completed letters with your application. Again, technically, an additional requirement and thus illegal. Practically, it speeds things up greatly and eliminates the angst producing "I wonder if my references received/sent back the forms yet" complex.

 

Just to show you that I am not a hypocrite, I did go a couple rounds, "correspondencewise", with the township solicitor & CLEO, but the lawyer's opinion was that they (the twp) were within the bounds of the law - had to agreee to disagree.

 

I understand that even though the examples given actually are to our benefit they really shouldn't be allowed as they set a precedent. While these may be good for us, what's to stop the next "additional requirements" from being detrimental?

 

Curious as to what you think and how hard should we push back - if at all? Interested in other examples of this same phenomena. What say you?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

If the police are having such a hard time doing their duties, they should complain to the CLEO and petition a change to the law to reduce their workload. Trenton may not listen to us taxpayers, but the traitors tasked with enforcing their crap laws may hold more clout.

 

Until then, continue being the squeaky wheel and use the courts.

[mikelets456 78]

Some townships in Hunterdon county require it now , dont know about the rest of NJ...

 

here is the link

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/29167-yet-again-a-new-requirement-for-ppsfid/

 

Really? This threw everyone over the edge? I can not believe the BS we have to go through in order to get a gun, let alone a FID card. We have to take off of work and set up a meeting, send out references, get fingerprinted, pay via MONEY ORDER only, have a face-face meeting with Police chief, fill out paperwork, list every freaking private detail of our lives, log our ammo purchases,etc...for what? For something that is listed in the "bill of rights" that reads "shall not be infringed"?

 

My goodness, we are not allowed to ask an illegal alien for ID in fear of hurting his feelings but we can be treated like criminals for a Constitutional right? BTW, the bill of rights DOES apply to the states. States simply can't limit free speech and illegally search and seize property. This is where the "bill of rights" kicks in. It is for ALL citizens of the USA. So what part of "shall not be infringed" does this state NOT understand?

 

When you apply for your FID you are now a registered gun owner. Nowhere else in the country do I know of this being done. Anyway, that is my rant and sorry I went off, but I am a bit ticked that I can't [even] sell my house because no one wants to live or move to NJ!

 

BTW, 71ragtopgoat you hit the nail on the head hence my rant.

[Soju 153]

 

I understand that even though the examples given actually are to our benefit they really shouldn't be allowed as they set a precedent. While these may be good for us, what's to stop the next "additional requirements" from being detrimental?

 

Curious as to what you think and how hard should we push back - if at all? Interested in other examples of this same phenomena. What say you?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I'm with you on your perspective. Unfortunately it appears that there are some places that you have two choices.

 

1. Give in to the additional and possibly illegal 'requirements' of that PD in order to get your FPID/PP as quickly as possible.

 

2. Do your best to only do the things explicitly and legally required, and deal with the repercussions, which apparently can often be that the PD violates the law and you wait...where you don't have any practical recourse.

 

I think we can all agree that having to put up with these shenanigans is a bunch of BS. The point is, how far are you willing to take it? It is indeed sad that even though you may be right, there is almost nothing you can do about it. Actually, it isn't just sad, it is totally ^#*@ed up!