I have hired and kept employed a number a people I'd rather didn't own guns. One of them eventually went too nutty and we had to fire him, but he was a good compiler programmer. (He's now in NYS prison for kidnapping and raping a woman, so it's probably a good thing he didn't have a gun).

 

But, my preference about whether or not my nutty programmers own guns doesn't impact their right to do so...

 

Yeah - it's not your choice whether or not they can - it's up to the courts and background checks.

I have hired and kept employed a number a people I'd rather didn't own guns. One of them eventually went too nutty and we had to fire him, but he was a good compiler programmer. (He's now in NYS prison for kidnapping and raping a woman, so it's probably a good thing he didn't have a gun).

 

But, my preference about whether or not my nutty programmers own guns doesn't impact their right to do so...

So you hired them and kept them around based on performance? you weren't worried about them walking away with sensitive material? I mean if you cant trust a guy with a gun how can you trust him to work for you company? I mean you wound up firing the guy, so i guess what i said has some truth to it unless he was fired after doing all that disgusting crap.

 

I do like the your statement on the preference issue.

I hate driving through your town just because of your police dept..

 

They should not be contacting your employer only your refrences..

this is what the courts and attorneys are for. There are two sides to every story, and we only have evidence hearsay from one side.

 

Personally, I think if someone brought up a reason why someone would not be a "good standing person" I would feel obliged to investigate it. You can hire people for many reasons.

 

As far as firing people, you can fire people for any reason in NJ, as long as it is not discriminatory. I know for a fact, my assistant, when I hired her, seemed like a good person, said all the right things. Over time I genuinely became concerned, and actually carried at the office days before firing her.

 

This is purely a case for the attorneys and courts. Making assumptions without knowing all the facts is just stupid.

 

Anyone remember Brian Aiken? Or what about the guy a year or so ago who was caught selling FA converted guns to the FBI undercover agents.

Or what about the guy a year or so ago who was caught selling FA converted guns to the FBI undercover agents.

 

Poor muffin

Over time I genuinely became concerned, and actually carried at the office days before firing her.

 

pics of said chick>>>

It is not "Standard practice" to notify employers..MY dept doesn't do it, nor does the one where I live, or any of the surrounding depts. SOME Do, and they are wrong for doing so.

It is not "Standard practice" to notify employers..MY dept doesn't do it, nor does the one where I live, or any of the surrounding depts. SOME Do, and they are wrong for doing so.

 

Recently, when a new person takes over firearm apps and calls NJSP for advice, they request that employment be verified. This happened at my PD and the DB refuses to change because "that's what NJSP told us".

Recently, when a new person takes over firearm apps and calls NJSP for advice, they request that employment be verified. This happened at my PD and the DB refuses to change because "that's what NJSP told us".

 

My local P.D. not only required employer information, but also asked me to provide two ADDITIONAL references from among my neighbors on the block. Said it would "expedite the process", which was utter horse sh*t of course. Because I work for the federal government and our local office is staffed largely by bureaucratic nitwits, they took over two months to confirm my employment, according to the detective.

 

It's easy to SAY that applicants should challenge the cops doing the paperwork, but I have a pretty fair idea--based on my experiences and those of a couple of other guys in town--that the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease here, just more scrutiny and delay in approvals.

Recently, when a new person takes over firearm apps and calls NJSP for advice, they request that employment be verified. This happened at my PD and the DB refuses to change because "that's what NJSP told us".

 

 

j0n:

There is a vast difference between "verifying employment" and what this woman was subjected to. The NJSP Guide states that the investigating officer verify employment - that is all. For an HR Dept to do anything else - unless under court order - violates all kinds of privacy and makes the company liable. The PD in her town (and many others throughout NJ) treated the employer information like it was a reference - that's plain wrong and I hope it gets rectified in the courts. I hope invasion of privacy gets added to her wrongful termination suit also.

 

NJScott:

The STS-033 form - which you are required to complete - asks for the employment information, which is supposed to be used to verify employment, and for two personal references that are not immediate family. What the PD cannot do is require that your references be local, or even NJ residents.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

j0n:

There is a vast difference between "verifying employment" and what this woman was subjected to. The NJSP Guide states that the investigating officer verify employment - that is all. For an HR Dept to do anything else - unless under court order - violates all kinds of privacy and makes the company liable. The PD in her town (and many others throughout NJ) treated the employer information like it was a reference - that's plain wrong and I hope it gets rectified in the courts. I hope invasion of privacy gets added to her wrongful termination suit also.

 

Agreed on all counts, however the directions provided by NJSP state that the employment verification form should indicate the reasoning behind the verification request(firearms). It is possible that the employer saw this form and then contacted the PD on their own accord rather than confirm employment. For the record I DO NOT agree with this, just regurgitating.

Agreed on all counts, however the directions provided by NJSP state that the employment verification form should indicate the reasoning behind the verification request(firearms). It is possible that the employer saw this form and then contacted the PD on their own accord rather than confirm employment. For the record I DO NOT agree with this, just regurgitating.

 

 

It's a stretch to think the employer saw the form. As for the reason for verification: "Non-criminal background investigation" is all that needs to be said - and all that should be said. If the employer volunteered any info, then I hope she bankrupts them in court.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

It's a stretch to think the employer saw the form. As for the reason for verification: "Non-criminal background investigation" is all that needs to be said - and all that should be said. If the employer volunteered any info, then I hope she bankrupts them in court.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

The form I am referring to is the one mailed to the Employer to confirm employment, which the employer would definitely have seen.

There shouldn't be a need to send any type of letter to confirm employment. You don't have to have a job to have your 2nd amendment rights under the constitution.

 

Writing your employer on the sheet should be more than enough.

There shouldn't be a need to send any type of letter to confirm employment. You don't have to have a job to have your 2nd amendment rights under the constitution.

 

Writing your employer on the sheet should be more than enough.

 

Again, I'm simply regurgitating what NJSP has said.

Recently, when a new person takes over firearm apps and calls NJSP for advice, they request that employment be verified. This happened at my PD and the DB refuses to change because "that's what NJSP told us".

Theres a huge difference between Verifying, ie. "Hi this is XYZ PD, we are just calling to verify that John Doe is in fact employed by you. He Is? Thank you very much, Good Day" as opposed to asking the employer if they THINK the employee should have firearms.

 

The Blue part is ALL That is needed.

Theres a huge difference between Verifying, ie. "Hi this is XYZ PD, we are just calling to verify that John Doe is in fact employed by you. He Is? Thank you very much, Good Day" as opposed to asking the employer if they THINK the employee should have firearms.

 

The Blue part is ALL That is needed.

 

Agreed. MY pd feels it necessary to have a paper trail, therefore a form is mailed informing the employer of the reason behind the confirmation, and they are asked to mail the form back with a signature verifying said employment. My concerns have fallen on deaf ears.

The form I am referring to is the one mailed to the Employer to confirm employment, which the employer would definitely have seen.

 

 

j0n:

 

AFAIK, there is no NJSP "Employment Verification Form" - at least there is none included, or even referenced in the NJSP Guide. There is simply an instruction that says, "Verify the applicant's employment by contacting their employer". This is item #22 under "Investigation of the Applicant".

 

If your dept is sending out a form, especially one disclosing the applicant's desire to purchase a firearm, it originates with your dept and not the state police. Again, and this can't be said enough, an applicant's employer has no business knowing their employee desires to purchase a firearm.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Has this gotten to the :thsmiley_deadhorse: stage yet?

j0n:

 

AFAIK, there is no NJSP "Employment Verification Form" - at least there is none included, or even referenced in the NJSP Guide. There is simply an instruction that says, "Verify the applicant's employment by contacting their employer". This is item #22 under "Investigation of the Applicant".

 

If your dept is sending out a form, especially one disclosing the applicant's desire to purchase a firearm, it originates with your dept and not the state police. Again, and this can't be said enough, an applicant's employer has no business knowing their employee desires to purchase a firearm.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Has this gotten to the :thsmiley_deadhorse: stage yet?

 

Long past it. I am not referring to a written directive by the NJSP. I am referring to what has been told to our DB by the NJSP on multiple occasions, which our DB has adopted. For the umpteenth time... I do not agree with it, I am simply passing along information.

My Pd does not verify employment, the town feels that it exposes them to suits by doing it or anything else NOT required by NJ law. It probably helps that they do permits regularly and have had a single person doing it a long time

This should be easy to figure out. Can't someone just check the NJSP guideline book for FPID investigations?

 

Oh no, wait ...

This should be easy to figure out. Can't someone just check the NJSP guideline book for FPID investigations?

 

Oh no, wait ...

 

 

See post #48

See post #48

 

and why hasn't this been uploaded to the internet yet?

When employers are contacted for employment checks or past employment checks, it is my understanding there are very strict rules governing what they can and can't say. They are not character references, and can only say whether or not you did/do work at the company, and if you left, what were the terms, as in resignation or being fired.

Dan is on the money, if I get a call Yes or No for employment and Resign or Fired, no explanations for anything else. Anything other than that and it would need to be directed to a HR and/or Legal department.

 

Harry

Dan is on the money, if I get a call Yes or No for employment and Resign or Fired, no explanations for anything else. Anything other than that and it would need to be directed to a HR and/or Legal department.

 

Harry

 

 

Unfortunately more people feel obligated to expound so as not to appear rude.

Unfortunately more people feel obligated to expound so as not to appear rude.

 

Thats is when they open themselves and the company up for problems.

 

Harry