Marlton,NJ police home visit FOID

[mikelets456 78]

I was surprised that my friend got a visit from the Evesham PD when applying for his FOID. He said the LEO was pleasant and accommodating but he had to show ID, sign a form and "prove" he lived there. The LEO asked a few other questions and told him the FOID should be issued soon.

I did not know they actually go to the house now...kind of creepy if you ask me. Is this typical throughout the state? 

[njpilot 671]

Not in Freehold. That is ridiculous and an invasion of privacy.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

i've never heard that before, and would venture that it is an additional illegal thing that they're doing.

[ryan_j 0]

I had no idea we had Firearm OWNER IDs in NJ.  

We have Firearm PURCHASER ID cards in NJ. One does not need a card to own any firearm in NJ, unless it's a NFA item or assault weapon. 

[mikelets456 78]

i've never heard that before, and would venture that it is an additional illegal thing that they're doing.

I asked if they went into the house and he said "no". But he did ask questions, made him show his ID, sign a few items and I think show some other proof that he lived there. One other thing I never thought of, it stinks even more because I'm sure his neighbors are going to ask him why a LEO was at his house. My goodness, I hope this does not become common place.

[NYMetsFan86 9]

100% not part of the process at all and an invasion of privacy. Id call NJ2AS and let them know. Not sure if they will call or send the department a letter, they may do absolutely nothing but at least you may save someone the trouble in the future. That's just as bad, if not worse, than adding extra forms and papers to the process.

[plode 0]

Perhaps something in their background investigation lead them to believe he didn't reside at that address?  

[DSD1026 48]

Perhaps something in their background investigation lead them to believe he didn't reside at that address?  

 

stop being pragmatic dammit..  this is an internet forum

[mikelets456 78]

Perhaps something in their background investigation lead them to believe he didn't reside at that address?  

 

I guess his clean background, clear criminal record and being an honest tax paying citizen sent up a red flag at the Police Department.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Sorry I dont have a problem with a quick check that somebody actually resides at the address they say. Checking for an initial FID, ok...if they did it every time he applied for permits then no

[mark_anthony_78 0]

Shouldn't presentation of a state issued Driver's License be enough?

 

Considering you practically have to go through a prostate exam to prove your residence/address to get one of those?

[plode 0]

When NJSP takes 3-4 months to issue P2P's...and a neighboring township takes 2 weeks... I'm not going to lie, I have thought about "moving" to my friends house in the neighboring township, just so I don't have to wait for 4 months for P2P's. 

 

I have not "moved" though.  An address verification such as an officer knocking on the door would catch me...although I'm not sure what difference that would make really...I'm still going through the same background check no matter my location in NJ. 

[BlueLineFish 615]

You can get a dl with an old address.

[Howard 538]

When I applied for my initial FID in Randolph they wanted proof that I lived in town.  That seems reasonable since they only are allowed to charge $5, it costs them more to process than they take in.  They asked me for a utility bill.  The woman was very nice when I explained I did not have any with me since it did not say anything about it on the web.  I said I would go to my car and see what if any papers I had.  I came back with my insurance ID card which has my address and she said that would be fine.  Really was not an issue.

[MikeL417 33]

I'd call SP and other organizations. That is not part of the process. It is wrong.

[AverageJoe 95]

When I took the test for Paterson FD way back when...they went to applicant's houses to make sure they lived in town. No big deal.

[Sota 1,191]

it is a quote big deal quote.it's not part of the mandated paperwork and requirements as laid down by law. If it's not part of the law it's illegal. Just because it's not inconvenient to some doesn't make it wrong. Follow the letter of the law. the current laws are already onerous enough we don't need any additional infringement.

[Howard 538]

it is a quote big deal quote.it's not part of the mandated paperwork and requirements as laid down by law. If it's not part of the law it's illegal. Just because it's not inconvenient to some doesn't make it wrong. Follow the letter of the law. the current laws are already onerous enough we don't need any additional infringement.

I don't agree that proving you live in the town is an issue.  You realize that stance is the same the left is taking with voting, that you should just be able to go and vote and not prove who you are or if you really live there.  The local police provide a service for the residents and should be able to have you prove you are a resident of the town before they provide the service.  Once you have proven that then I agree they should not be able to ask anything except what state law requires, but they have a right to only provide the service to lawful residents of the town.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I guess, the question becomes, "what discretion does the CLEO have in re: 'investigating' the apps?"  I can see where verifying the street address might be something legitemate and, as BLF said, anyone can produce a DL with a different address. But actually visiting the home (or worse, requesting entry) might be a bit problematic for a number of reasons. Primarily, it alerts those "nosy neighbors" that, AFAIC, have no business knowing what I do, privately. I have heard of departments that will interview neighbors (even if not specified as references on sts-066) to verify that the person is who they claim to be and what type of character they are. To me, that's a total invasion of privacy and unacceptable. This isn't an SF-86 for a "top secret" security clearance! Furthermore, making direct contact with an employer and saying, "Mr./Ms. So and so is applying for an FPID etc. etc." is also an invasion of privacy.  It's none of the employeer's business and could get the employee fired (if the company mgt. is "anti").  Lucky for me, I own my own IT consulting business, so "problem solved." I'm my own employer.

 

Thankfully, my town did not impose any extra requirements beyond those within state law. They were absolutely great. They did get a copy of the DL, but only *after* they had issued the initial FPID and permits and I was picking them up. They also didn't charge the fees until pick up date (the logic being, in the event of a denial, they didn't want to have to refund). When I went in to get 2 more permits a few months after the initial docs, I did give them another DL copy, as it had been renewed since then (std. 4 year renewal).  Other than that, smooth sailing an no additional requirements!

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

it is a quote big deal quote.it's not part of the mandated paperwork and requirements as laid down by law. If it's not part of the law it's illegal. Just because it's not inconvenient to some doesn't make it wrong. Follow the letter of the law. the current laws are already onerous enough we don't need any additional infringement.

 

I can only partially agree here. The local PD is tasked by law to do a background investigation on the applicant and I'm not sure exactly how much leeway they have in conducting such an investigation. If the visit is it, then I would say they are probably on pretty firm legal ground. Once they asked the applicant to sign additional papers stipulating this is their residence or other information, then they are off base - as was stated, that is why you are required to present a state issued ID. Also as Blue said - if this is a one time thing (and I'm saying: no additional paperwork) then no big deal. If it's everytime, then it is a big deal. Heck, if it was me they were investigating, they may as well just set-up permanent residence in the living room.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Sota 1,191]

your driver's license (which iirc is presented upon first request for an FPID or a permit) already states where you live. To obtain a driver's license you already had to PROVE you live where you say you live. There is no need for a personalized visit by the police. It is an unnecessary waste of limited resources (police manpower and time) and is beyond the scope of the letter of the law.

[Double Cheese 8]

They do a residence check every time you put in for permits.  I didn't mind when I first applied for my FPID, but it does get annoying.  The detective handling the applications does ask what a convenient time to come by would be. I give a one hour window on Sundays when I'm home.  I didn't mind so much when I got my permits within 30 days.  Now that we have a new chief, permits seem to take a lot longer. Perhaps I'll contact NJ2AS.

 

Also, see this thread from last year:

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/47474-leos-driving-byknocking-on-doors-after-fid-apps-and-ccw-fingerprints/

[Howard 538]

your driver's license (which iirc is presented upon first request for an FPID or a permit) already states where you live. To obtain a driver's license you already had to PROVE you live where you say you live. There is no need for a personalized visit by the police. It is an unnecessary waste of limited resources (police manpower and time) and is beyond the scope of the letter of the law.

While you are correct about proving where you live to get a driver's license, that is where it ends.  There are thousands if no tens of thousands of people in the state that no longer live at the address on their driver's license and fail to get them changed.  I think the theory that they want to see a current utility bill is valid as you would unlikely be paying a utility bill for an address you no longer live at.  The random drive-by is probably a good method too.  

[NYMetsFan86 9]

everyone is going to have a different opinion whether or not they think this is a bullshit idea or not. yes it serves a purpose but no its not the only way to Verify address. THE HARD FACTS: Not part of the process and therefore shouldn't be happening arbitrarily. These inconsistencies are part of the problem. "one town checks and one dosent". I do not want you at my house or on my porch because its not part of the mandatory process for obtaining the ID.

 

Not necessary for my ID + I didnt invite you over = don't come to my house to see if i live there.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

 The random drive-by is probably a good method too.  

 

But what would that tell them, other than there is a residence at that address (i.e. it isn't a "vacant lot"), unless they actually stopped and tried to talk with someone? Utility bill is OK (as long as it shows the "Service address"... the bill itself could be mailed elsewhere (i.e. to a PO Box)). Property tax bills might be good too, as long as you're the owner (and not renting).

 

If they actually do stop, then anyone in the neighbohood will be altered and want to start getting nosy about why that police car is in the driveway or near the house. And, yes, neighbors *are* that nosy (mine are, anyway )!  They're always on the lookout for anything that their other neighbors are into that might just bring down their own property values (as any visit by a police car might indicate "criminal activity") .

[wooly bugger 1]

It's simple. You should just be able to show him your voter ID card, and that would eliminate all of the rampant FID fraud.

[OchoBlue 3]

Now if you had to prove residency to vote and bring a utility bill NJ.com would be all over it and call it "suppression "!

 

What if the utilities are in his wife's name ? What if he is renting all utilities included? Sounds like an illegal requirement IMO.

 

If only the Star Ledger and MSNBC were on OUR side!

[mikelets456 78]

Sorry I dont have a problem with a quick check that somebody actually resides at the address they say. Checking for an initial FID, ok...if they did it every time he applied for permits then no

I guess it would be okay if we did this with voters? How about I come to your house and investigate you every time I "feel like it" and you can't deny me doing so? How about I question your job, question your abilities to do your job and have you pay me for doing so? Maybe I can judge your character in front of your neighbors? Yeah, it's really not an infringement is it. I'm sure you'd love me questioning your life daily.

[BlueLineFish 615]

The voting system is a joke and does need to be changed. They are not coming any time they feel..just once for an initial check. Whonisnquestioning your ability to do your job? Judging character in front of neighbors...by checking if you live there? Im gonna get you an academy award for best dramatic performance

[mikelets456 78]

The voting system is a joke and does need to be changed. They are not coming any time they feel..just once for an initial check. Whonisnquestioning your ability to do your job? Judging character in front of neighbors...by checking if you live there? Im gonna get you an academy award for best dramatic performance

So running a background check, get finger printed, put down two references, pay $68, fill out a questionnaire, take off work twice to pick up info then sit and be questioned for no apparent reason, wait 2-6 months, usually have some sort of complication, have a Leo call your boss, question your physical and mental condition, then visit your home, be questioned again, show Id, sign more papers...ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOURE EVEN ABLE TO BUY A BB GUN. Then there's pistol permits.....and I'm the one with a problem?

 

You think it's all fine and good to treat honest citizens like this? Wow, I feel sorry for you. Maybe soon you'll wake up....