I'm a character reference for a friend applying for a few P2Ps

 

Reading thru the questions there is one sticks out as being misleading

 

Read it and comment -- I'm not sure how I will reply to this question

 

 

 

Question 2 -- Do you have any knowledge of any medical, mental, or alcoholic background of the applicant?

 

Yes? _____   No?______

 

If yes explain

 

 

 

 

That is exactly how it's worded

 

What do you think? Am I over thinking it?

That is very misleading. However I think the intended point is whether the applicant has a history of any of the above.

 

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

The technical answer would be YES in that you have knowledge of his mental background.

"Yes. I am aware of his background since (fill in the year), and as far as I know he has no medical, mental or alcoholic issues or behavior in it that would preclude him from owning a firearm. Your question struck me as ambiguous, so I have answered it explicitly."

That is why LEO should stick to Law Enforcement and Lawyers to legal questions.  I suppose it also states they are applying for a permit to purchase a handgun. Not supposed to do that either.  One job I worked at Inhuman Resources would tell me straight out they would respond negatively to requests to purchase a handgun as they believed no one should own one other than PD.  That was a fun.  Had to get the request straight to my boss, he didn't care. Worked every time. References are stupid.  You would not use someone not on your side, and for that matter who are these people providing this information.  Don't get me started.

 

Question 2 -- Do you have any knowledge of any medical, mental, or alcoholic background of the applicant?

 

Yes? _____   No?______

 

If yes explain

 

 

 

That's up there with "Do you still beat your wife?"

IMHO I think that one is pretty straight forward, if your friend is stable its simply NO and move on… unless you’re Evan Nappen this is how we are all conditioned to think about firearm laws in NJ.  so NO I don’t think you are over thinking it.

I was just channeling my inner Nappen.

 

My current favorite legalese is "I never sent or received any emails marked 'classified'".

 

No, I didn't go to Harvard Law.

"Yes. I am aware of his background since (fill in the year), and as far as I know he has no medical, mental or alcoholic issues or behavior in it that would preclude him from owning a firearm. Your question struck me as ambiguous, so I have answered it explicitly."

 

This is close to how I am going to answer this question

 

 

 

 

 

That is very misleading. However I think the intended point is whether the applicant has a history of any of the above.

 

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

 

Of course the applicant has a medical history --and a mental history -- are they negative or do they have any relevance to owning a firearm 

 

 

 

IMHO I think that one is pretty straight forward, if your friend is stable its simply NO and move on… unless you’re Evan Nappen this is how we are all conditioned to think about firearm laws in NJ.  so NO I don’t think you are over thinking it.

 

 

No would be a lie -- Think about anyone you've known for a number of years -- have they been sick?  hospitalized?  do you know this -- then you know their medical background

 

How about their mental background -- Of course you know this too -- why are they your friend?  Why did they chose you as a reference? You have knowledge of their mental background too 

 

I don't even know what to think about Alcoholic background -- shouldn't even be lumped in with medical and mental 

 

A better question -- Have you known the applicant to abuse alcohol? Is the applicant an alcoholic in your opinion? 

  I suppose it also states they are applying for a permit to purchase a handgun. Not supposed to do that either.  

Absolutely has Application for a permit to purchase a handgun

 

Point me to where it says this shouldn't be included on the form?  I'll be sure to reference it if I can.

This is like the freaking Twilight Zone!  This crap is really getting crazy!  Obviously the CLEO in his town

is an ANTI to the extreme! 

 

Would you mind naming this town?

Question 2 -- Do you have any knowledge of any medical, mental, or alcoholic background of the applicant?

The question should continue ", that would preclude the applicant from owning a firearm?"

 

Am I over thinking it?

Yes

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

The question should continue ", that would preclude the applicant from owning a firearm?"

 

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

 

Agreed

 I don't see anywhere that says the reference form can't say application to purchase a handgun

 

The applicant waives the right to privacy when applying from the way I read it

 

The references are part of the state form

 Obviously the CLEO in his town

is an ANTI to the extreme! 

 

Would you mind naming this town?

 

Town is Middlesex Borough -- It's a new chief of barely 6 months and he is not anti gun --  I know him personally

 

He's making a lot of changes in town for the better -- I'm sure this one will get addressed too

 

My point to this whole post was that question needs to be more specific -- The way it's worded makes it a very general question that can't be answered No truthfully in my eyes

 

 I just wanted to see what you guys thought

If you have access to Nappen's 2014 Gun Laws book, read page 175 on Privacy and Guns.  He states that "any background investigation conducted for any application for a handgun purchase permit or firearms identification card is also not a public record and shall not be disclosed to any person not authorized by law to have access to such investigation".  To me that says the documents asking for information from references are part of the investigation and the fact that I want a handgun in none of their business.  The letter should state that I have business with the department and are asking for information about me, that's all.  Not blab to my employer or references that I want a handgun, it's none of their business. 

Town is Middlesex Borough -- It's a new chief of barely 6 months and he is not anti gun -- I know him personally

 

He's making a lot of changes in town for the better -- I'm sure this one will get addressed too

 

My point to this whole post was that question needs to be more specific -- The way it's worded makes it a very general question that can't be answered No truthfully in my eyes

 

I just wanted to see what you guys thought

If he is 2a friendly like you say, I bet he would appreciate if someone like yourself took up their pen and drafted an update to the questionaire. He would otherwise need to do it or allocate an officer's time to a rewrite, which is often why tasks do not get accomplished.

 

If you're not a "legalese" kinda guy, have a friend read it over first.

You are over thinking this.  If you know and like the person just fill it out so they get their permit.  It says to the best of your knowledge or something like that.  The reality is this is all very stupid.  The person could have a large criminal record and be on constant drugs and you might never know it.  This is the job for the police to investigate not for you to know.  This is more of the liberal crap to make it harder to get guns.  Who that is not a total idiot has a recommendation form sent to someone that is not going to give them a positive review.

I just recently was a reference for a friend and he for me. I go to Port Norris State police and he goes to Buena State police for permits. We both answered NO and we both received our permits with no problem.

T Bill has it right (post #16). What he wrote is a verbatim quote from the NJAC 13:54-1.15

That is why LEO should stick to Law Enforcement and Lawyers to legal questions. 

LEOs should stick to questions of whether 2+2=4. Past that they're in over their heads.

T Bill has it right (post #16). What he wrote is a verbatim quote from the NJAC 13:54-1.15

Thanks, PB, could not find it last night.  It's one of my pet peeves.

T Bill has it right (post #16). What he wrote is a verbatim quote from the NJAC 13:54-1.15

 

 

I saw that last night -- I guess you could take it to mean what you and Nappen say

 

But I read it as the entire background check -- not the reason for background check

 

No one has access to the results of said background check except LEO -- not public info

 

I guess it really doesn't matter -- you use your chosen reference for a reason -- they are like minded

If one of your reference called you and said "I have a background request here from the local PD. Whats this all about?" You really going to say "none of your business?"

My simple fix is to use friends who like to shoot as references.

It's not who I use as a reference that bothers me. What I have a problem with is the employer and their people.  At one employer, the blabber mouth secretary in the HR department told everyone she saw I was buying a gun and don't piss me off.  Well that led to a formal complaint with HR that did not go over well.  That is why I do not want the background check to state what my business is with the PD.

The employer should not be contacted. The forms allowed have already been case law. Contact strike force

The disclosure of employer information on the STS-033 (application) is ONLY for the police to verify your employment and nothing more. PD's that disclose the reason for the verification or use your employer as a defacto reference are abusing the process and should be reported to the ANJRPC. If you suffer damages because of it (i.e.loss of job or standing) you should bring suit against the PD.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

Robbinsville Twp does not require reference forms to be filled out and returned. All you do is provide 2 reference phone numbers, they call and its done!

It's not who I use as a reference that bothers me. What I have a problem with is the employer and their people.  At one employer, the blabber mouth secretary in the HR department told everyone she saw I was buying a gun and don't piss me off.  Well that led to a formal complaint with HR that did not go over well.  That is why I do not want the background check to state what my business is with the PD.

 

 

I couldn't agree more -- no reason for employer to be informed of purchase 

 

Sounds like the PD went above and beyond to tell your employer -- if they weren't a authorized reference than they shouldn't be contacted

 

FWIW my employer has never been contacted

 

What do you think? Am I over thinking it?

Sadly, I'd say it's typical of something written by your average criminal justice student at the local 13th grade, AKA "community college".