NJ PTPP Applications—Contacting Employers

[LorenzoS 100]

I am sorry to agree with you. The threat of "outing" innocent people to employers is a deliberate strategy to intimidate you from excersising your rights.

 

I urge you to contact the good people at the New Jersey Second Ammendment Society. Their team has succeeded several times at getting townships to change their policies through diplomacy and education. They have a sub-form here http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/forum/106-new-jersey-second-amendment-society/

[djg0770 481]

Not necessarily. Read PK90's response carefully - the information is required on every application, whether the PD acts upon it is discretionary and may depend on a number of factors. Don't forget, the same application is used (STS-033) whether it is for your FPID or if you are applying for P2P's.

 

Exactly. Some towns use it as a delay tactic (just went through this with a buddy who always uses me as a reference) and other towns don't bother sending additional questionnaires after the initial questionnaire IF the references are the same as before.

[ITman 2]

I guess I am proof that subtle intimidation tactics actually work.

Lately I have been thinking about getting a M1911 and a M9A1. I have actually delayed my purchases now for well over a year because I am reluctant to go through the permit process again.

 

As if it is not enough to impose upon two friends to have reference forms notarized and to arrange telephone interviews with the local PD during regular business hours, I also have to subject to having my employer notified that I am buying handguns. The Township will send a letter to my employer supposedly to “verify” the employment information that I provide on the application. However, the form has a big bold title telling everyone the reason for the verification is because I am applying for a permit to purchase a handgun.

 

I am not paranoid. But, I do believe that this does not reflect positively upon me and is certainly not healthy for my career. I would prefer that my local PD either not contact my employer or exercise some discretion in the amount of information they share with my employer.

 

The last time this happened, I called the PD and asked them why they did it. The Cpl told me that they are required to verify all the information on the application. When I asked if they could exercise some discretion, he got exceptionally agitated with me and shut his ears off.

 

What are my rights? Can I direct them not to divulge the reason for verifying my employment (mortgage companies do not tell employers details about why they are verifying employment)? Can I leave the Employer Information (STS 033, Line 12) blank, or write in “Do not contact Employer”? Or, do I just have to sucker down and endure?

 

Thanks.

When I applied for my FID and 3 handgun permits the PD never contacted my employer. None of the forms had to be notarized. That being said it did take a bit of effort to get my second references paperwork to the PD. First my reference never received the paperwork so I asked the lady at the PD is she could resend it. She said she would but she also said most likely the person didn't want to be a reference. Two weeks passed and my reference again did not receive the paperwork. I called my PD and told the lady that my reference still had not received the paperwork. She once again said he most likely got it but does not want to be a reference to purchase a handgun. When I got home I noticed in some old mail I had that one of the letters was addressed to my reference at my address. I opened it and sure enough the town somehow mailed my references paperwork to me. I hand delivered the paperwork to my reference and he completed it and mailed it to my PD. After about two weeks it found its way the the lady in my PD.

That was but one of the fiascos in my almost 4 month process of obtaining my FID and handgun permits.

[TheDon 3]

Now look at the very NEXT line of the application.

 

26) Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental

institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition? If yes, give the name and location

of the doctor, psychiatrist, hospital or institution and the date(s) of such occurrence.

 

So yeah technically he should have disclosed that information.

 

New information on this. I talked to a doctor about NJ law and he assured me that typical depression is NOT a mental illness. It is a chemical imbalance and is classified as a medical condition.

 

Clinical Depression and Major Depressive Disorder are mental conditions. However, the kind of depression that most people are treated for, where they see a psychiatrist once a month and are prescribed an antidepressant, is not considered by considered a "mental or psychiatric condition" as specified on STS-033.

 

Below is a link to the complete list of mental disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association, and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) published by the World Health Organization (WHO).

http://en.wikipedia....the_DSM_and_ICD

 

IMHO, if you ain't got one of those, you do not have to answer question 26 in the affirmative.

[ETA] Anyone who has concerns about this should ask their health care provider whether their specific condition would be considered a "mental or psychiatric condition" in the legal context of such terms.

Edited March 11, 2012 by TheDon

[JackDaWack 2,895]

The question asked "mental condition" not mental illness or medical condition.... The question is designed to incorporate anyone who has ever had an mental issue, no matter how mundane or serious it really is. Your better off asking a lawyer. The statues are not written to meet the medical definitions, they are written in a definite form. A disorder/illness is a mental condition, but a condition is not necessarily a disorder. Mental illness and disorder usually stem from the ability to diagnose, while a mental condition is just that, the constant state of mental health. These two terms, condition and illness, are not related in these terms, an illness is something that can be diagnosed, while a condition describes the mental state of a person. A condition is not a medical term used to diagnosed someone, the term disease is used, it is a term used to describe the frequency of occurrence. If you feel depressed all the time, you have a mental condition of being depressed, and may be diagnosed with clinical depression(an illness/disease or disorder). Put simply, an condition is a broad term used by doctors to describe a constant state of physical or mental being, while an illness/disease/disorder diagnoses said condition. My mental condition is currently sane(subjected to change), and thus requires no diagnosis. This is where the law gets fuzzy, what does the state define a mental condition to be? We all have a mental condition, whether it be normal(sane) or subsequently different, the law however seems to be written to incorporate any mental condition outside of the norm. As in why would someone see a doctor for being normal.

 

The only time i see someone being able to put down no, who has ever been treated for a mental condition, is if they acted pre-maturely in seeking answers to a mental state. IE, my GF broke up with me and im sad parent died or something similar, i go to see a doctor and she says, yes your sad/depressed, but a month later you realize your not depressed you were just sad and are over it. Thus, creating a false mental condition, because it is not consistent enough to actually be called a condition.

[TheDon 3]

So, you are saying that it is in the choice of the word "condition" as opposed to "disorder" that they broaden the applicability.

 

If they said a "mental disorder" it would be clearly defined in great detail by the international medical community. I just searched the NJ Permanent Statutes database for a definition of "mental condition." Of course, it is not defined anywhere. So, it is open to interpretation.

 

Well... chock up another perfect example of how legistlation passed as "reasonable" gun control can slide down the slippery slope and become unreasonable.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

So, you are saying that it is in the choice of the word "condition" as opposed to "disorder" that they broaden the applicability.

 

If they said a "mental disorder" it would be clearly defined in great detail by the international medical community. I just searched the NJ Permanent Statutes database for a definition of "mental condition." Of course, it is not defined anywhere. So, it is open to interpretation.

 

Well... chock up another perfect example of how legistlation passed as "reasonable" gun control can slide down the slippery slope and become unreasonable.

 

Exactly, if they said metal disorder/illness/disease they would be limiting themselves to what is defined in the medical books. By saying condition they can literally paint what ever picture they want. I don't necessarily think it is unreasonable, i think it was sneaky(like everything they do), it becomes unreasonable when they deny your application because you have ADHD.

[Qel Hoth 33]

Even if they said "mental disorder, illness, or disease," it does not necessarily mean the same thing as the medical definition of mental disorder, illness, or disease. Since it's not defined in the statute the prosecutor would try to argue that anything that affects one's mental state is a "disorder, illness, or disease," and you/your lawyer would argue that the law should be interpreted to mean the medical definition.

[TheDon 3]

And the net effect is, NJ gun owners may let minor medical conditions like depression or anxiety attacks go untreated because they do not want to explain it to the local law enforcement and have notations in their police file. Brilliant law-making.

 

For what its worth, the supporting law behind the form (reason for denying an application) does specify "disorder."

2C:58-3 c. (2) states: ... to any person who is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium, ...

However, the law that provides specifications for the form uses the terms "condition." Since falsifying any information on the form is a crime, you have to answer in the affirmative, even though it is irrelevant to the investigation.

[RS1200XL 4]

Let's play this game.

 

What if you are unemployed when submitting your form....while waiting for you to get a permit you find employment, before they go through the checks.

 

This was my last year of being a student, so I can't use that anymore. What does employment verification matter anyway? Student, employed or unemployed are all getting the okay, so why does it need to be verified?

[Jon 264]

Let's play this game.

 

What if you are unemployed when submitting your form....while waiting for you to get a permit you find employment, before they go through the checks.

 

This was my last year of being a student, so I can't use that anymore. What does employment verification matter anyway? Student, employed or unemployed are all getting the okay, so why does it need to be verified?

 

At the time you applied, were you unemployed? If yes, then that's that.

[TheDon 3]

Let's play this game.

 

What if you are unemployed when submitting your form....while waiting for you to get a permit you find employment, before they go through the checks.

 

This was my last year of being a student, so I can't use that anymore. What does employment verification matter anyway? Student, employed or unemployed are all getting the okay, so why does it need to be verified?

 

It is not "employment verification." The Superintendent says that all information on STS033 must be verfied. So regardless of whether you put down an employer or say unemployed, they are simply verifying that you answered truthfully.

[Dan 177]

Good luck, the statutes governing how the police are to handle the FID/PP purchase have no teeth to them. They are paper tigers. You can threaten legal action, but it will be on your dime. Even so, nothing will happen to the police. They can't "take back" outing you to your employer, and they will not be punished. The best that will come out of it is that they will change their process for future applicants that "ask" they only verify employment and go no further, this way they don't get in trouble by running up legal defense fees in case someone else wants to take them to court again.

 

The only way I can see scaring them into not outing you, is if you can threaten to sue for monetary damages , perhaps for defamation of character or something like that. It may be futile, but best to ask a lawyer, especially if you already have one on retainer. Here in NJ it seems we should all have a lawyer assigned to us at birth...

[rdsmith3 19]

Regarding the mental health question, how exactly do the local police even know? How do they do a mental health backgroun check?

 

There are several types of treatment for mental health conditions, and one or all may be used. First, a person my get counseling with a psychologist, LCSW, or whatever, for depression, marriage problems, and so on. I am not aware of any central data base that tracks counseling sessions, so it seems to me that the police would not know this unless you volunteered it. I am not advocating lying, but it seems very unlikely that anyone would know about counseling sessions, especially if you do not use insurance.

 

Second, a person may go to a psychiatrist or family doctor and get a prescription for anti-depressants. There may be some way for law enforcement to check prescription records, I suppose.

[mipafox 438]

This is really horrible.

[Twospot 38]

I am not a lawyer but I have direct experience with the mental health question. I went through about 5 years of misery in my marriage. My ex was a lazy woman who did anything she wanted other than what a stay at home mom should be doing (cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc. ) I am not a male chauvinist but when you choose to be a SAHM you have certain responsibilities to the household. I was working 60 hours a week coming home and cooking, cleaning, playing with the 2 little ones I had, getting them ready for bed, etc practically everyday. I was depressed. Then I found out she was cheating. All in one year I found out she was cheating, I filed for divorce, had to file bankruptcy and lost my house, my mom died from cancer and I lost my job. This is NO EXAGGERATION. It actually all happened within about 8 months from 2008 - 2009. I had been on meds for about 4 - 5 years at that point. I got up everyday, did my job took care of the family, and when I had lost my job found a new one pretty quickly. At that point I was unemployed and my ex had moved out and left me with the kids.

 

Fast forward 3 years... I have a new woman who is friggin' amazing (and shoots with me). I am no longer on meds, lost 100 pounds (I was fat). I was very nervous about the FID process because of this. I pondered back and forth should I put down that I saw a psych and was on some meds for a while or shouldn't I. I spoke with the lady at the local PD about it and she said to ABSOLUTELY put it down. She said a lot of folks go through that stuff but if you don't put it down and they find out 1. you are NOT getting your FID and 2. You have commited a crime.

 

So What I did, since these towns make US do extra paperwork I gave THEM some extra reading. I wrote a letter and attached it to my FID app with all my doctor info, exactly why I was being treated, and that I am no longer on the meds anymore. I made it completely available to them. I will talk about it with anyone (as you can see) because I am not ashamed of it. I made a conscious decision to keep myself in check which is more than we can say for even some LEO's out there that beat their wives and have anger issues. Sorry but there are plenty of them but THEY can have guns. So in my eyes I did the responsible thing and not ignore it.

 

The end result was I received my FID on Feb 10th of this year. Again I am not a lawyer, but this was my experience so I think that honesty is the best policy. I guess an attorney can tell you how they check for your mental issues, but if you want the FID just tell the truth.

[rdsmith3 19]

twospot,

 

Sorry to hear that. I had a bad experience myself with my first wife. Good for you for handling it the right way.

 

I am still curious, though, how they can possibly find out.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

twospot,

 

Sorry to hear that. I had a bad experience myself with my first wife. Good for you for handling it the right way.

 

I am still curious, though, how they can possibly find out.

You have to disclaim where or else they don't know, unless you were committed by the state. It's not a matter of THEM finding out, answer truthfully. 95% of people use private practitioners and there is no way for the state to find out info unless you provide it.

[rdsmith3 19]

You have to disclaim where or else they don't know, unless you were committed by the state. It's not a matter of THEM finding out, answer truthfully. 95% of people use private practitioners and there is no way for the state to find out info unless you provide it.

 

I agree -- be honest. However, since this is NJ, the process is somewhat arbitrary and capricious, and the questions are frustratingly vague. At face value, "Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental

institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition? If yes, give the name and location

of the doctor, psychiatrist, hospital or institution and the date(s) of such occurrence," does not seem to cover any counseling done by a person who is not a doctor or psychiatrist. For example, marital counseling or grief counseling done by a pastor, or an LCSW, does not seem to fall under their definition, and one could truthfully answer "NO."

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I agree -- be honest. However, since this is NJ, the process is somewhat arbitrary and capricious, and the questions are frustratingly vague. At face value, "Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental

institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition? If yes, give the name and location

of the doctor, psychiatrist, hospital or institution and the date(s) of such occurrence," does not seem to cover any counseling done by a person who is not a doctor or psychiatrist. For example, marital counseling or grief counseling done by a pastor, or an LCSW, does not seem to fall under their definition, and one could truthfully answer "NO."

 

Therapy is not on the form, so yes, you would answer no. Therapist is much different then a psychiatrist, they do not practice medicine and are not medical doctors, although they normally hold a doctorate in psychology. Therapists do not diagnose, they are behaviorists, although im sure therapists know more about their patients then psychiatrists. The reason for this is simple, you need to see a psychiatrist or medical doctor to get meds. that's basically all they are there for in this instance Diagnose and treatment. If you just see a therapist, chances are what ever condition you experiencing can be worked out by making small changes that effect behavior with out needed medication. 50% of mental issues can be overcome by making personal changes, a lot of people are on medication that don't even need it. While some people absolutely need it. Do you need drugs because your not happy, NO. Do you need drugs because your serotonin fluctuates heavily, yes. Two cases that will show the same symptoms, but were quick to medicate and people want a quick fix. The drugs can be used as a temporary solution, while you basically get your sh*t together, but they can also hinder progression/independence and are very hard to kick.

[TheDon 3]

I am still curious, though, how they can possibly find out.

 

Unless you provide the information, they cannot. You just have to be consistent (remember, the local police will have a file on you). i.e., If you answered in the negative on your FPID application in say 2008, you had better not answer in the affirmative and provide details on a 2012 PTPP application about counseling services you received in 2007.

 

The problem occurs if you and your firearms happen to have an encounter with LEO. Say, God forbid, you use a firearm to defend your home. A diligent investigator may dig it up and then you could get in quite a bit of trouble.

[mipafox 438]

You have to disclaim where or else they don't know, unless you were committed by the state. It's not a matter of THEM finding out, answer truthfully. 95% of people use private practitioners and there is no way for the state to find out info unless you provide it.

 

This is one of the reasons the federal government required the move to digital medical records. The transition isn't even over yet and the feds have already made two attempts to grab all of the records that exist in the US. They'll have them in real time in a year or two, and they'll be part of any background check. You'll just have to sign a HIPA form or the government won't give you whatever you are asking for.

 

Don't talk to police, and damn well better not talk to your doctor.

[TheDon 3]

This is one of the reasons the federal government required the move to digital medical records. The transition isn't even over yet and the feds have already made two attempts to grab all of the records that exist in the US. They'll have them in real time in a year or two, and they'll be part of any background check. You'll just have to sign a HIPA form or the government won't give you whatever you are asking for.

 

Don't talk to police, and damn well better not talk to your doctor.

 

I am plugged into what you are describing. The Federal Government has already contracted a company to develop a health score similar to your credit score. They say it is to better serve the public by giving healthcare providers a holistic view of their patient (justifying it because senior citizens see numerous specialist who do not communicate with each other).

There are soooo many devils lurking in the bowels of the Obamacare package.

[Twospot 38]

Also remember you give them the authorization to access any of your medical records when you sign that mental health form. Who knows where they reach. They probably don't reach but, I would rather be truthful and be denied then lie and be a felon

[Twospot 38]

 

 

Therapy is not on the form, so yes, you would answer no. Therapist is much different then a psychiatrist, they do not practice medicine and are not medical doctors, although they normally hold a doctorate in psychology. Therapists do not diagnose, they are behaviorists, although im sure therapists know more about their patients then psychiatrists. The reason for this is simple, you need to see a psychiatrist or medical doctor to get meds. that's basically all they are there for in this instance Diagnose and treatment. If you just see a therapist, chances are what ever condition you experiencing can be worked out by making small changes that effect behavior with out needed medication. 50% of mental issues can be overcome by making personal changes, a lot of people are on medication that don't even need it. While some people absolutely need it. Do you need drugs because your not happy, NO. Do you need drugs because your serotonin fluctuates heavily, yes. Two cases that will show the same symptoms, but were quick to medicate and people want a quick fix. The drugs can be used as a temporary solution, while you basically get your sh*t together, but they can also hinder progression/independence and are very hard to kick.

I totally agree agree about the therapist. They are not a medical doctor or psychiatrist. If you saw a psychologist and put NO I do not believe that's a lie. However it is NJ that doesn't mean they won't make you fight their decision in court.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Also remember you give them the authorization to access any of your medical records when you sign that mental health form. Who knows where they reach. They probably don't reach but, I would rather be truthful and be denied then lie and be a felon

 

I believe it is for the release of mental health records only.

[O-gre 7]

I thought it was a bit odd too that they sent a letter telling my employer that I was applying for a gun permit!

[O-gre 7]

I am not a lawyer but I have direct experience with the mental health question. I went through about 5 years of misery in my marriage. My ex was a lazy woman who did anything she wanted other than what a stay at home mom should be doing (cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc. ) I am not a male chauvinist but when you choose to be a SAHM you have certain responsibilities to the household. I was working 60 hours a week coming home and cooking, cleaning, playing with the 2 little ones I had, getting them ready for bed, etc practically everyday. I was depressed. Then I found out she was cheating. All in one year I found out she was cheating, I filed for divorce, had to file bankruptcy and lost my house, my mom died from cancer and I lost my job. This is NO EXAGGERATION. It actually all happened within about 8 months from 2008 - 2009. I had been on meds for about 4 - 5 years at that point. I got up everyday, did my job took care of the family, and when I had lost my job found a new one pretty quickly. At that point I was unemployed and my ex had moved out and left me with the kids.

 

Fast forward 3 years... I have a new woman who is friggin' amazing (and shoots with me). I am no longer on meds, lost 100 pounds (I was fat). I was very nervous about the FID process because of this. I pondered back and forth should I put down that I saw a psych and was on some meds for a while or shouldn't I. I spoke with the lady at the local PD about it and she said to ABSOLUTELY put it down. She said a lot of folks go through that stuff but if you don't put it down and they find out 1. you are NOT getting your FID and 2. You have commited a crime.

 

So What I did, since these towns make US do extra paperwork I gave THEM some extra reading. I wrote a letter and attached it to my FID app with all my doctor info, exactly why I was being treated, and that I am no longer on the meds anymore. I made it completely available to them. I will talk about it with anyone (as you can see) because I am not ashamed of it. I made a conscious decision to keep myself in check which is more than we can say for even some LEO's out there that beat their wives and have anger issues. Sorry but there are plenty of them but THEY can have guns. So in my eyes I did the responsible thing and not ignore it.

 

The end result was I received my FID on Feb 10th of this year. Again I am not a lawyer, but this was my experience so I think that honesty is the best policy. I guess an attorney can tell you how they check for your mental issues, but if you want the FID just tell the truth.

Congrats on getting through the rough ride. We all have them. I'm sure ur kids make it all worth it!

[Twospot 38]

Right but it doesn't say where... You are relinquishing your privacy for them. They can obtain that by showing your authorization to do so, unless I misunderstood the form

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Right but it doesn't say where... You are relinquishing your privacy for them. They can obtain that by showing your authorization to do so, unless I misunderstood the form

 

http://nj.gov/njsp/i...arms/sp-066.pdf

 

Based on the document the medical professional is only granted permission to share mental health records. Honestly, i would think your doctor would want you to sign a record release document as well to cover there own asses.