Jump to content
revenger

OPRA / FOIA requests

Recommended Posts

  For any lawyers out there I have a question.

i believe that the state claims that the info on who has gun permits regardless of the type that it is not public information to be released for OPRA / FOIA requests .

 

I have been thinking and maybe this was addressed but wouldn't the fact that we are forced to submit our applications with 2 references negate the claim of  "secrecy" or what ever lame excuse the state calls it.   since they require people other than the applicant to know you have a permit shouldn't this information be defacto public information and thus be  available through a OPRA request.  

how can in one breath they say its not public and then the next breath force us to make it public.  

anyone care to jump in on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, revenger said:

  since they require people other than the applicant to know you have a permit shouldn't this information be defacto public information and thus be  available through a OPRA request.  

how can in one breath they say its not public and then the next breath force us to make it public.  

anyone care to jump in on this.

While IANAL, if the police let it be known that the reference requested is for the purpose of obtaining a firearm permit, then they (the police) have violated 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.

I have a feeling that this (violating confidence) is done routinely by issuing authorities. My take on this is that the references are to be general character references and firearms should never become part and parcel of the conversation - I doubt that in the majority of cases this is so. This will continue until someone takes them to task (legally) and that is not likely to happen as we have bigger fish to fry.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Share this post


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

While IANAL, if the police let it be known that the reference requested is for the purpose of obtaining a firearm permit, then they (the police) have violated 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.

I have a feeling that this (violating confidence) is done routinely by issuing authorities. My take on this is that the references are to be general character references and firearms should never become part and parcel of the conversation - I doubt that in the majority of cases this is so. This will continue until someone takes them to task (legally) and that is not likely to happen as we have bigger fish to fry.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Also not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that when you fill out your application and list your references, you are giving the investigating agency implicit permission to contact those references you listed on your behalf specifically to complete your application packet.

In any event - who here doesn’t call their references either before applying, or immediately after applying, to let them know you are getting firearm permits to keep a look out and to please return them promptly.

I don’t think it’s any secret or surprise to anyone that receives a reference form that it’s coming or that’s it is firearms related.

The language you posted above PB is what prevents these documents from being OPRA or FOIA-able once the investigation is complete.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, High Exposure said:

In any event - who here doesn’t call their references either before applying, or immediately after applying, to let them know you are getting firearm permits to keep a look out and to please return them promptly.

It’s a bit of a segue, but the employer letters I’ve seen always made it clear they were for gun permits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is the best example..

Jersey City,  with their additional forms, required a letter from your employer certifying it is okay for you to own a gun, and it had to be notarized!

No, not for carry, for regular FID/purchase permits. 

Direct from someone I bought a gun from.  Guy was working in a large media company and was not the one to make this up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Pizza Bob said:

While IANAL, if the police let it be known that the reference requested is for the purpose of obtaining a firearm permit, then they (the police) have violated 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.

I have a feeling that this (violating confidence) is done routinely by issuing authorities. My take on this is that the references are to be general character references and firearms should never become part and parcel of the conversation - I doubt that in the majority of cases this is so. This will continue until someone takes them to task (legally) and that is not likely to happen as we have bigger fish to fry.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

IANAL but I don't think "violating confidence" is done routinely.  When the investigating authority contacts a reference, either in person or by letter, it makes sense they let the reference know why they are being contacted.  That sets the tone for any information they disclose.  Most people have very little contact with the police. It let's the reference know they aren't being investigated.  Doing it by letter limits the amount of information requested, is specific, and gives the investigating agency a written record of the information provided by the reference.

Of course contacting references you provide means they're not going to screw you.  Another worthless facet of the NJ system.

I really don't see an issue for most people contacting your employer by letter or in person.   Employer is one of the blocks on the application and verifying employment is always done in a background investigation.  Once again I don't think it's "violating confidence" by telling your employer why.   I can understand if you work for a rabid antigun employer if it bothers you.

I've conducted at least a few investigations in my time.  I don't have any experience dealing with OPRA but a bit with FOIA.  If you file a FOIA for something you will often find information redacted even if you were the subject of the request.  That redacted information would be things that neither help or hurt you.  Therefore you have no right to know them.

My big problem with the system in NJ is if the investigation results in you being denied you have no right to get the investigation report.  You have to defend yourself in an appeal when you don't know what made you denied.  I think NJ can get away with this because I don't see this as a Constitutional issue of facing your accusers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

I really don't see an issue for most people contacting your employer by letter or in person.   Employer is one of the blocks on the application and verifying employment is always done in a background investigation.  Once again I don't think it's "violating confidence" by telling your employer why.   I can understand if you work for a rabid antigun employer if it bothers you.

Not sure on the legality of it, BUT I do think this can be used to do more harm than good.

Verification of employment should be just that... verification of employment.

It should not be disclosed as to why... and if the employer wants to know, they should ask the employee.

Realistically, telling an employer out of the blue that... "One of your employees is applying to get a gun..."  is likely going to create some issues... UNLESS that employer is 100% pro gun.  

Anything less than strictly pro gun... such as a larger company, do they want that risk?  And will only start the water cooler effect if you are talking to someone from HR instead of the boss.

HR people have high regards for what they do and will look for ANY reason to "do their job."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Maksim said:

Not sure on the legality of it, BUT I do think this can be used to do more harm than good.

Verification of employment should be just that... verification of employment.

It should not be disclosed as to why... and if the employer wants to know, they should ask the employee.

Realistically, telling an employer out of the blue that... "One of your employees is applying to get a gun..."  is likely going to create some issues... UNLESS that employer is 100% pro gun.  

Anything less than strictly pro gun... such as a larger company, do they want that risk?  And will only start the water cooler effect if you are talking to someone from HR instead of the boss.

HR people have high regards for what they do and will look for ANY reason to "do their job."

 

@Maksim look at it another way if the investigating agency doesn't tell your employer why they are verifying your employment.

If the police ask, "does Joe Blow work there?" a normal response from whoever is being asked would be, "Why?".  If the police say, "None of your business", that can create a lot of issues.

I've dealt with HR departments that refused to tell me anything even though I had signed information releases from the person in question.  Should the tpolice lie?  Should they tell a half truth like, "he's applying for a license" without specifying what kind of license?

Let the employer ask the employee why?  That can cause issues too. An employer may feel they don't need the police poking around their business for any reason.

Not telling the employer why can work against you too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow your guys references are actually contacted? Mine were never contacted, every time I turned in permit paperwork I included the reference letters that I filled out and my references signed. My references were never even contacted for my non resident NH ccw permit or my resident permit once I moved up here either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in my town... about half the time the permits were issued BEFORE reference letters were even back, and employer was never contacted.  And of course, if you have any business... you are always "self employed."

Uploading to youtube? "Self Employed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little humor here...

Last time the local LEO contacted one of my listed references - my next door neighbor and a retired LEO - he led off with, "Guess who's buying another gun?"

Adios,

Pizza Bob

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pizza Bob said:

A little humor here...

Last time the local LEO contacted one of my listed references - my next door neighbor and a retired LEO - he led off with, "Guess who's buying another gun?"

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Will be an interesting data point to collect, whether town calls references or just mails a letter.

Generally been letters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SJG said:

To answer your original question, the answer is true, that is what they claim

Ugh, all the fun ends when an actual lawyer comes in and answers the question and takes the topic... back on topic. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

@Maksim look at it another way if the investigating agency doesn't tell your employer why they are verifying your employment.

If the police ask, "does Joe Blow work there?" a normal response from whoever is being asked would be, "Why?".  If the police say, "None of your business", that can create a lot of issues.

I've dealt with HR departments that refused to tell me anything even though I had signed information releases from the person in question.  Should the tpolice lie?  Should they tell a half truth like, "he's applying for a license" without specifying what kind of license?

Let the employer ask the employee why?  That can cause issues too. An employer may feel they don't need the police poking around their business for any reason.

Not telling the employer why can work against you too.  

Why are they even talking to the employer? verification of employment is not 1 of the application criteria. And what if i'm unemployed at the moment???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GRIZ said:

I really don't see an issue for most people contacting your employer by letter or in person.   Employer is one of the blocks on the application and verifying employment is always done in a background investigation.  Once again I don't think it's "violating confidence" by telling your employer why.   I can understand if you work for a rabid antigun employer if it bothers you.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you(?), I think you're completely wrong on the first statement (boldfaced above). Your point (in the second boldfaced statement) explains why. Sadly, "rabid antigun" sentiment is not such a rarity in this state on the part of employers. Case in point, I recently asked a group of women shooters for a pic to post on facebook - their heads almost exploded. It turns out many of them were teachers and they said quite bluntly there'd be serious blowback from administration if they were seen shooting at a range - a perfectly legal, Constitutionally-protected right. Things are getting CRAZY. There's no reason an officer can't assure the employer's HR rep, "Oh, it's nothing to be concerned about - we run routine background checks as a service for all kinds of things"... and then roll right on with the questions! They should not be revealing that it's for firearms. In this anti-2A environment? That could cause problems for someone's career.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MartyZ said:

Why are they even talking to the employer? verification of employment is not 1 of the application criteria. And what if i'm unemployed at the moment???

As someone else said I can't see what difference it makes if you're employed or not or who your employer is.  The blocks probably doesn't belong on the application but it is.

The STS033 (Application for FPID or P2P) asks for name of employer, address and phone number in block 12 and occupation in block 13.  That's the same information they ask for your references.  Now try to submit that application leaving those blocks blank.  You'll be told to fill them out. You can probably leave 12 blank if you put retired in 13.

I've seen some suggest putting self employed even if they're not.  That would be a false statement and we'll get into that.

Go down to the bottom right of the form where you sign.  By signing you attest to the fact all information on the application are complete, true, and correct.  Below the signature line you are advised that falsification of the form is a third degree crime.  That's the same as burglary, aggravated assault, or terroristic threats.  You can get 3-5 years for a third degree crime.

Now look at the lower left corner of the form where it says reason for disapproval.  "E" is falsification of application.  If it's on the application and you lie about it you can be denied.

So yes, disclosing your employer is a application criteria.  Just like anything else on the application it's subject to verification.

If you're unemployed that's what you put in block 13.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

As someone else said I can't see what difference it makes if you're employed or not or who your employer is.  The blocks probably doesn't belong on the application but it is.

The STS033 (Application for FPID or P2P) asks for name of employer, address and phone number in block and occupation in block 13.  That's the same information they ask for your references.  Now try to submit that application leaving those blocks blank.  You'll be told to fill them out. You can probably leave 12 blank if you put retired in 13.

I've seen some suggest putting self employed even if they're not.  That would be a false statement and we'll get into that.

Go down to the bottom right of the form where you sign.  By signing you attest to the fact all information on the application are complete, true, and correct.  Below the signature line you are advised that falsification of the form is a third degree crime.  That's the same as burglary, aggravated assault, or terroristic threats.  You can get 3-5 years for a third degree crime.

Now look at the lower left corner of the form where it says reason for disapproval.  "E" is falsification of application.  If it's on the application and you lie about it you can be denied.

So yes, disclosing your employer is a application criteria.  Just like anything else on the application it's subject to verification.

If you're unemployed that's what you put in block 13.

 

 

Oh without a doubt I don't think anyone is denying that it is not a question that needs to be asked... merited or not, it is on the application.

The issue is the disclosure and whether your employer has the right to know what the request is for.  As @Mrs. Peel brought up a way of answering it without disclosing the reason why.

Verification of employment are quite common outside of guns, and are for things like loan applications or even new jobs... heck, how about scholarships.  No one needs to know it is for guns.

As far as lying on the app, absolutely should not... BUT if you are self employed... i.e. selling on ebay or doing anything FOR PROFIT... you are self employed. 

As far as I know the question is not... "Who is your primary source of income?"  

Uber? Lyft driver?  Self employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SmittyMHS said:

So if you're retired are they gonna start canvasing your neighbors? Do they have the right to know the old man down the street is getting another gun? No more then your boss does as far as I'm concerned.  

I fill out "self-employed", because I am. So, the NJSP (who happen to serve my town) only contact the references I give them. It seems to me these folks don't have the time to start asking neighbors! And why would they? Unless you're a known problem in town, I doubt that would even occur to them.

My only issue is that when they verify employment for those of you NOT self-employed, they should exercise discretion - because there's no reason not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SmittyMHS said:

So if you're retired are they gonna start canvasing your neighbors?

I put down retired. It's never been an issue and they don't check anyone/anyplace else.

1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

My only issue is that when they verify employment for those of you NOT self-employed, they should exercise discretion - because there's no reason not to.

The reality is, it shouldn't even be on the form. It's none of their business. And if it was, I'm sure they have a way to look it up internally through their state contacts and databases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The employer question is the single thing that holds me back from applying for additional permits, which is probably exactly what it is designed for. I work in NYC in higher education and it’s hard to find a more liberal environment. I’ve applied for permits twice and both times my job was contacted. Each time I was as asked questions by HR and they were generally very awkward conversations. I don’t want to go through it again, as I like my job and don’t want to cause unnecessary problems. My wife also works in higher education and she hasn’t gotten her FID yet since she doesn’t want her institution to know. It’s not right and the question shouldn’t be on there. It’s NONE of my employer’s business what I do in my spare time, particularly when it’s a constitutional right. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chocodove said:

The employer question is the single thing that holds me back from applying for additional permits, which is probably exactly what it is designed for. I work in NYC in higher education and it’s hard to find a more liberal environment. I’ve applied for permits twice and both times my job was contacted. Each time I was as asked questions by HR and they were generally very awkward conversations. I don’t want to go through it again, as I like my job and don’t want to cause unnecessary problems. My wife also works in higher education and she hasn’t gotten her FID yet since she doesn’t want her institution to know. It’s not right and the question shouldn’t be on there. It’s NONE of my employer’s business what I do in my spare time, particularly when it’s a constitutional right. 

Thanks for sharing that and this is a prime example of why and what's wrong with that question.

I suppose can ask the PD for discretion?  

Or always good rule of thumb to pre-empt the questions by letting HR know someone will be calling to verify employment. 

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...