Jump to content
revenger

OPRA / FOIA requests

Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2019 at 1:59 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

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.

@Mrs. Peel @Maksim just because antigun people are wrong doesn't mean they're stupid.

Anytime I've encountered a point of contact for employment verification they have always asked "Why?".  If you don't give them a direct answer they not only are reluctant to give you an answer it allows their imagination run wild.  Telling them, "we run routine background checks as a service for all kinds of things" and trying to let it go at that is going to cause more issues for the applicant.

The POC doing the verification is going to wonder how come they never got a call like that regarding another employee.  Is they guy a pedophile, involved in kiddie porn, or some other illegal activity?  Private industry, for the most part, is protective about employee information and will ask why. The POC for employment verification might discuss this with their boss.  Some have suggested that the employee should be the one to inform their employer.  So what does the employee say when the employer asks them why?  None of your business why the police are asking why I work here?

Now if that doesn't cause any issues what happens when they get to the questions?  How long has the person worked there? Why are the police asking this?  Now based on reference letters I've done the cat is out of the bag when the question, "do you know any reason the applicant should not own a firearm" is asked?

People know the police don't routinely do background investigations on people.   IMO the police telling the employer why they are asking is much less injurious to the employee.  If anyone can give an example of how discrete yet believable the police should be I'm all ears.

Someone suggested they confirm your employment through some database. There is no such database. The closest would be IRS or the State Division of Taxation.  From my experience neither shares much information even with a LE agency when they are working a case jointly.

The only way to easily verify employment is contacting the employer.  The easiest way to deal with it with the least repercussions is for the police to tell the employer why the inquiry is being made.

The employer and occupation question is on the application and other than it is a standard background investigation question I agree it shouldn't be there.  I've bought a lot of guns from dealers and the Federal government is content without knowing my employer or occupation.

The idea of providing references is pretty phony baloney too AFAIC.  Is anyone going to provide a reference that's going to a questionable person or say bad things about them?

@Mrs. Peel I can understand why your teacher friends are reluctant to posing for photos with guns.  Different jobs have different rules.  Some of them written and some not written.  During my career in the Federal government I was forbidden by the Hatch Act to participate in partisian politics. However, your friends apparently have survived any employment verification inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a well-reasoned answer, @GRIZ.  Yes, human nature being what it is, I can see that NOT giving info could raise curiosity. But, your whole post has now got me thinking they shouldn't verify employment at all. If an unemployed or self-employed person can exercise this constitutional right without the employment verification, why should someone else who's employed by any company be subjected to what is - arguably - a higher level of scrutiny? They ought to toss it out entirely. And I agree, I think the personal references are a joke, too. Criminal and mental should be the focus. The employment verification probably causes more harm than good in a state such as this one.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the bigger question is why does the state feel that employment have anything to do with firearm ownership? Why do employed people have an extra part of the background check as compared to those unemployed, self-employed, or retired? If the goal was simply to confirm employment, which shouldn’t matter anyway, then why shouldn’t a paystub serve the purpose? 

Share this post


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

Now if that doesn't cause any issues what happens when they get to the questions?  How long has the person worked there? Why are the police asking this?  Now based on reference letters I've done the cat is out of the bag when the question, "do you know any reason the applicant should not own a firearm" is asked?

People know the police don't routinely do background investigations on people.   IMO the police telling the employer why they are asking is much less injurious to the employee.  If anyone can give an example of how discrete yet believable the police should be I'm all ears.

 

No doubt it is a sticky situation and hence why IF the company is going to know that there will be a verification of employment, the person should give HR a heads up.  It should be up to the employee to let the HR or bosses know that  they are applying for firearms permits or what not.

But this is also why I would list a contact of a direct manager rather than purely HR.  Bosses are in a much less "gatekeeper" mode than HR.  

For instance, when I worked at UBS... if you called corporate HR, you would get run around, etc... But... if you called my manager or any other boss in the office, would be... "Hey, does this person work here?" "Yes", end of story. 

But this is why I am all for the person taking the initiative when it comes to getting permits.

No doubt the person doing the check has a tough and delicate job and I don't think anyone is denying that.    But I also know if you want results and want to avoid bureaucracy, go straight to decision maker. lol.

Or simply saying... "Hello, this is Detective XXXX from WWWW PD.  Calling to verify that XXXX is an employee."  What you are applying for should not matter but again though, if HR has an issue with it, it should be with them and the employee.  Or simply "XXX is applying for some permits."  They are not going to ask permits for what. 

6 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

That's a well-reasoned answer, @GRIZ.  Yes, human nature being what it is, I can see that NOT giving info could raise curiosity. But, your whole post has now got me thinking they shouldn't verify employment at all. If an unemployed or self-employed person can exercise this constitutional right without the employment verification, why should someone else who's employed by any company be subjected to what is - arguably - a higher level of scrutiny? They ought to toss it out entirely. And I agree, I think the personal references are a joke, too. Criminal and mental should be the focus. The employment verification probably causes more harm than good in a state such as this one.

But they are supposed to verify "Self employed" and they can if they want to.  It would be difficult for them to and I highly doubt they even want to go down that rabbit hole.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I guess the bigger question is why does the state feel that employment have anything to do with firearm ownership? Why do employed people have an extra part of the background check as compared to those unemployed, self-employed, or retired? If the goal was simply to confirm employment, which shouldn’t matter anyway, then why shouldn’t a paystub serve the purpose? 

I am thinking the intent of it was to verify your identity?

That it was you who applied and not someone else?  Or in case NICS comes up with more than 1 match?

Share this post


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

I am thinking the intent of it was to verify your identity?

That it was you who applied and not someone else?  Or in case NICS comes up with more than 1 match?

I don't know about that.

Isn't there enough other items included with the permit process to verify that. I doubt someone trying to steal your identity to buy a gun would go through the whole permit process. They would just go to downtown Camden.

Share this post


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

I don't know about that.

Isn't there enough other items included with the permit process to verify that. I doubt someone trying to steal your identity to buy a gun would go through the whole permit process. They would just go to downtown Camden.

Exactly, if someone is stealing your ID they sure s hell aren't going to deal with the popo while doing it. The employment verification is total nonsense and overly intrusive but that's the wholepoint of the process anyway, to harass and dissuade. I've always been self employed or retired so I dont deal with that bs.

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...