Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gfl216

When Did They Start This?

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if this was covered in another thread or if it's old news (I looked but didn't find anything). I applied for a few P2P for the first time in a few years and they sent a notice / questioner to my job. When did this happen? I don't ever remember them sending one before. Is it something just my town is doing or is this everywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been reports of PDs sending notice / questioner to job location. I have nice words to say about those PDs but that will take this thread to 1A. If I were you, I would write a real nice letter to Chief, copy Mayor and local assembly-person. The contents of such letter would indicate how they are being discriminatory, potentially causing stir at work, opening door for job loss and more importantly interfering with your individual right. It would also highlight the fact that the application was NOT for any carry permit, has nothing to do with your job or carrying at work. 

 

BTW, do you mind letting us know the town here ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my last round of P2Ps about 8 months ago and my employer was never contacted! I know since I am the boss! My wife applied for her own FPID and a P2P a couple months ago and her employer WAS contacted! I thought it strange as my PD has always been VERY 2A friendly!

Makes me wonder if the AG or NJSP added this crap. Either way, the real bad shit is yet to come! Which is why I made my wife get her permit now while it's still relatively easy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lady at my PD actually calls my work...  in an attempt to "prove" that I work at the place I listed on the paperwork.  It's incredibly annoying and intrusive, but I feel bad because the lady is forced to do this and hates doing it.  We now have a liberal mayor and everything went downhill FAST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a total invasion of privacy and, what if my boss is a dick and, either gives me a "bad" review or doesn't reply at all? Dose this determine if my P2P is issued? In my job it depends on how the day goes, today I'm a hero and tomorrow I'm an asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My employer has a policy not to confirm, or comment on, employment status. They use a third-party that charges a fee to the requestor. 

16 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

I would hope that anyone who loses their job because of this would bring suit against the agency that sent it!

Probably a pretty solid Wrongful Termination case too, I imagine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

My employer has a policy not to confirm, or comment on, employment status. They use a third-party that charges a fee to the requestor. 

Probably a pretty solid Wrongful Termination case too, I imagine. 

The vast majority of companies - certainly any with even a half-decent HR department - will be very circumspect about what info they give out. Most will provide only the most skeletal employment verification - "Yes, he works here currently. Yes, he's worked here since 2015" and that's pretty much it. Too many companies got their asses sued off for giving negative info about current (or  former) employees.

Still, I think it's invasive for the State Police to be calling to verify employment. Could be perceived badly. (Fortunately, I'm self-employed - there's no one on the form for them to call other than me!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackandjill said:

There have been reports of PDs sending notice / questioner to job location. I have nice words to say about those PDs but that will take this thread to 1A. If I were you, I would write a real nice letter to Chief, copy Mayor and local assembly-person. The contents of such letter would indicate how they are being discriminatory, potentially causing stir at work, opening door for job loss and more importantly interfering with your individual right. It would also highlight the fact that the application was NOT for any carry permit, has nothing to do with your job or carrying at work. 

 

BTW, do you mind letting us know the town here ? 

you forgot illegal i think.

56 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

I would hope that anyone who loses their job because of this would bring suit against the agency that sent it!

hhmmm...who...oh who would represent them??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

you forgot illegal i think.

They could get away with it by claiming they are verifying "authenticity" of the information you provided to them.  So its best to provide as minimal information as possible unless they legally demand it.  Its like the distinguishing mark I have on my ass that I never mention in any Govt paperwork because then they claim they have to check it (I did warn about 1A :-)). 

For this and many other reasons, I wonder if History will see the th*gs from Camden as real free people while it laughs at rest of us sweating the paperwork. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Barms said:

Putting self employed is intreresting.  Does the page that you are asked employer on have the “by signing you are attesting the above is true.... etc etc?

i don't remember. it's been awhile. it won't be any time in the near future either, as i will be purchasing no pistols as a nj resident. once i've got an out of state addy and id, i'll buy what i want. without the illegal registration process

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Barms said:

Putting self employed is intreresting.  Does the page that you are asked employer on have the “by signing you are attesting the above is true.... etc etc?

------- STS-033 ------------

I hereby certify that the answers given on this application are complete, true and correct in every particular. I realize that if any of the foregoing answers made by me are false, I am subject to punishment.

Falsification of this form is a crime of the third degree as provided in NJS 2C:39-10c.

---------

The way I read it, if you provide information, it has to be true/correct. If you don't provide and they don't lawfully demand, then everyone wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verification of employment inquiry should only state you have a process pending with the PD. My complaint for years has been the letter states you are applying to buy a gun.  Big no-no for  me and I did make them aware of it.  They didn't care. However, I move from there and that was the end of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 10:26 PM, GramGun79 said:

Bridgewater always contacts your job, Unless your self employed :lol:

 

As does mine, EVERY TIME.  It gets old hearing from my bosses about arsenals and limits on guns.  I just keep quiet and let them yap about stuff they no nothing about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting self employed is intreresting.  Does the page that you are asked employer on have the “by signing you are attesting the above is true.... etc etc?

Yes that is on the form but I am self employed. My claim is legitimate. I used to write in my company info and they always sent a notice to my office. I would have to fill it out and return a questionnaire about myself lol. Last year I decided to give the “self employed” a shot. The result was no more letters at the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, T Bill said:

The verification of employment inquiry should only state you have a process pending with the PD. My complaint for years has been the letter states you are applying to buy a gun.  Big no-no for  me and I did make them aware of it.  They didn't care. However, I moved from there and that was the end of that.

This is correct. The purpose of requesting the employment information on the STS-033 is simply for the local PD to verify employment information as part of the legal background check performed by the issuing agency. In pursuit of this verification, it should not be disclosed that this is pursuant to a firearms matter. The disclosure of the purpose for the inquiry and/or the sending of an actual questionnaire requesting information about the applicant runs afoul of NJAC 13:54-1.15, which states: 

Any background investigation conducted by the chief of police, the Superintendent or the county prosecutor, of any applicant for a permit, firearms identification card license, or registration, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, is not a public record and shall not be disclosed to any person not authorized by law  or this chapter to have access to such investigation, including the applicant. Any application for a permit, firearms identification card, or license, and any document reflecting the issuance or denial of such permit, firearms identification card, or license, and any permit, firearms identification card, license, certification, certificate, form of register, or registration statement, maintained by any State or municipal governmental agency, is not a public record and shall not be disclosed to any person not authorized by law or this chapter to have access to such documentation, including the applicant, except on the request of persons acting in their governmental capacities for purposes of the administration of justice.

There is much broken with our system of firearms procurement and it is doubtful that anything will be done by the new executive branch to remedy same.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 9:28 PM, jackandjill said:

The contents of such letter would indicate how they are being discriminatory, potentially causing stir at work, opening door for job loss and more importantly interfering with your individual right.

 

Or, as New Jersey politicians and judges would describe it "Working as intended" 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the distinct impression the form sent from my town indicated it was confidential because my job wouldn’t let me see it.  But the person filling it out said it just asked about employment.  He only mentioned it to me as a courtesy because he thought I had some sort of issue with local law enforcement since it was an inquiry from the local police department.

At one point I thought it might have questions about my character or if they had issues with me obtaining a firearm, but it didn’t ask anything like that.  If it did, I would have sued the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last pistol permit I got in Galloway TWP before leaving NJ.. they gave me a form to fill out about the people that I live with as "part of the check".. I told them no thank you.. they then told me it was for "my safety in case there was a problem with any of those people being around guns" I politely declined again.. they positioned the document to me maybe 2 or 3 times.. and each time I told them "no thank you" and they eventually just let it go.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...