Md Handgun permit interview

GBMaryland said:

In my case I spoke with HR, and they FLATLY indicated that not only would disclosing the names of fellow employees be a breech of contract (with the Feds), but that if my supervisor said anything other then the fact I worked there and the dates, he/she would be repremanded, and that any law suit I brought forth would not covered by the State of Maryland.

Soooo... you only have a few choices, I spoke with HR, and they crushed the whole thing for me. "Do not disclose ANYONE. They can call us, we will have the HR executive speak with them, and that person will only confirm that you would here and the dates of your employment. This is the policy of the State of Maryland."

...or, you can indicate that, while you have no reason to believe that your boss or coworkers would speak ill of you, that you really feel it would be in poor form to put them in a position where if they did answer questions in a negative or anti-gun fashion, that you would feel the need to sue them.

The cold truth is that you can PIA your records and start going hog wild with law suits. The judge may throw it out, but that's what appeals are for...

I am very suspicious about the phrasing on the application form indicating that you agree not to sue. (I think that's something it said...)

I believe that to be a load of crap, and while I have no idea how good my attorney in MD is, there is some indication that coercing people to sign a form indicating they will not sue people related to the investigation for a CCW is also a violation of your rights...

How exactly, I'm not certain, but I willing to plunk down a few bucks to see where it goes.

Granted, in my case, I've got no reason to suspect issues at all. However, I really think that eventually, someone is going to put the above to the test.

Click to expand...

So what your saying, you can't go to your boss and ask him man to man if he would talk to the MSP if by chance they call? I'm not talking about the official channels of going through HR.

mr h said:

If you have other permits, and they know about them (or vice-versa), it's pretty easy math to determine whether you're likely to already have a carry weapon.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's the point. One more thing they know and want to see if you lie about it.

They do not need to speak with your employer. Don't sweat it.

Merlin said:

So what your saying, you can't go to your boss and ask him man to man if he would talk to the MSP if by chance they call? I'm not talking about the official channels of going through HR.

Click to expand...

Once I talked to HR, absolutely.

However, in my case, no, I'm contractually obligated to not, under any circumstances, disclose the names of my coworkers due to some convoluted aspect of an agreement we have with the feds.

That much was obvious before I spoke with HR.

Seriously though, it really is what any company's policy is going to be... don't talk to anyone about your subordinates or coworkers. "because both you and we can be sued..."

Of course, I'm wondering, in our organization, how it's possible that the MSP would "happen to call?"

In my case, my boss would have said something like "give that man a permit!" (As I told him/her that pending HR and Security vetting the MSP process, someone might call him/her for an opinion on me...) Of course, we spend a lot of time shooting together as well...

teratos said:

They do not need to speak with your employer. Don't sweat it.

Click to expand...

You and I both know the MSP do not “need” to talk to employers. So far with my two permits my employer was never contacted either time. But if we place ourselves in the shoes of the MSP and see that requested contact info has not been provided they are going to wonder why that is. Their curiosity will be peaked and will want to take a much closer look.

I believe when the MSP do want to talk to employers it is the next step they take if they are not satisfied from the conversations they have with the three character references.

If someone works for a place that has some policy about giving out info, even to police, I recommend the applicant still provide the contact info of their employer or HR department anyway as requested on the application. Let the employer or HR department explain the company policies to the MSP. By providing all info as requested the applicant is doing what he or she is asked of them on the application form.

If it works out the given employer will not give any info to the MSP, it is not the applicants fault this took place. The applicant has no control over what others do. If an application is submitted without providing all contact info as requested as well as including a letter of the reasons why the info has not been provided, the MSP will wonder if this is really true or is there something the applicant does not want the MSP to learn about them.

At the end of the day the applicant will not get their permit faster by NOT providing all of the info that is requested. IF/when the MSP contacts the employer and that employer will not provide the MSP with whatever info they are looking for, the MSP will not blame the applicant for this road block and the applicant will be looked at as trying to do all that has been requested of them. If the applicant was smart and provided three provided character references that are looked at and considered to be upstanding and trustworthy I would be willing to bet it does not go as far as a call to the employer, but if it did and it turned out the employer was not helpful, the three character references that had all good things to say about the applicant will most likely be enough for the MSP. If the applicant provides all info as requested the MSP may not even bother contacting the employer after talking to the provided character references.

With guns as always being a hot topic it is always best to approach the employers/supervisors that may be contacted so they are not caught off guard when the MSP do call, if they call. But after doing so and it looks like they may be less then cooperative with the MSP, I say still provide the MSP with the contact info and let then tell it to the MSP. So even if it is true the employer will not talk to the MSP, it may not get that far and be a non-issue.

GBMaryland said:

Once I talked to HR, absolutely.

However, in my case, no, I'm contractually obligated to not, under any circumstances, disclose the names of my coworkers due to some convoluted aspect of an agreement we have with the feds.

That much was obvious before I spoke with HR.

Seriously though, it really is what any company's policy is going to be... don't talk to anyone about your subordinates or coworkers. "because both you and we can be sued..."

Of course, I'm wondering, in our organization, how it's possible that the MSP would "happen to call?"

In my case, my boss would have said something like "give that man a permit!" (As I told him/her that pending HR and Security vetting the MSP process, someone might call him/her for an opinion on me...) Of course, we spend a lot of time shooting together as well...

Click to expand...

And I think this is one reason why the MSP do not call the place of employment that often. However I would always recommend to all applicants to answer all of the questions and provide all of the requested info on the application. If the company will not answer the MSP questions, it's not the applicants fault. If the info is provided there is no reason for the MSP to wonder why it has been omitted.

Merlin said:

And I think this is one reason why the MSP do not call the place of employment that often. However I would always recommend to all applicants to answer all of the questions and provide all of the requested info on the application. If the company will not answer the MSP questions, it's not the applicants fault. If the info is provided there is no reason for the MSP to wonder why it has been omitted.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you entirely... obviously, if the form asks for the information, it IS your responsibility to do your level best to answer the questions even if you don't like it.

I, of course, did this.

I'm certian that others don't like this policy and there can also be reasons not to do so.

For example, one of the HR reps is EXTREMELY anti-gun... and flat out told me that if she go the call, she'd be outright hostile, even though she had nothing bad to say about me personally.

Good thing MSP only got to speak with an HR executive!

Once again, my point is, this opens a huge can of legal worms for everyone involved... from the investigating officer, to the employer, to the supervisor and coworkers, and lastly, to the applicant.

I'm not an attorney, I don't know that law in these matters, but I do know that providing MSP with your coworkers names and contact information is probably a legal risk.

If (and when) the information on the application process was PIA'ed (and it will be)... various bottoms could be legally at risk.

That's my concern... I have not idea how true it is, or realistic.



[As always, please ignore my typos.]

Permit

I have had a permit for over ten years, I have a business and my interview was done over the phone, with most of the conversation done with my wife.

GBMaryland said:

I don't disagree with you entirely... obviously, if the form asks for the information, it IS your responsibility to do your level best to answer the questions even if you don't like it.

I, of course, did this.

I'm certain that others don't like this policy and there can also be reasons not to do so.

For example, one of the HR reps is EXTREMELY anti-gun... and flat out told me that if she go the call, she'd be outright hostile, even though she had nothing bad to say about me personally.

Good thing MSP only got to speak with an HR executive!

Once again, my point is, this opens a huge can of legal worms for everyone involved... from the investigating officer, to the employer, to the supervisor and coworkers, and lastly, to the applicant.

I'm not an attorney, I don't know that law in these matters, but I do know that providing MSP with your coworkers names and contact information is probably a legal risk.

If (and when) the information on the application process was PIA'ed (and it will be)... various bottoms could be legally at risk.

That's my concern... I have not idea how true it is, or realistic.



[As always, please ignore my typos.]

Click to expand...

Legal concerns are issues with employers. For example my wife is in management. When one of her people is looking for a new employment, or maybe someone that worked for her at one time in the past has listed an employment history that included my wife, if my wife thought the employee was a very good worker that was easy to get along with and if she had all good things to say, my wife could say as many nice/positive things that she wanted to support the employee getting or looking for that new job.

However if the employee was not a good working that my wife did not have anything good to say about, All my wife could do was confirm the employee did or still does work for her. No more, no less. She can't say any bad things about the employee. But that works for employers looking to hire. If they get an answer, "I can just confirm that Billy bob does work for us", with no good thing added in, the looking employer knows what that means. But if they call me wife and ask about Bill Bob's brother the GREAT worker, my wife can say all the good things she want to, to included she wish she had him back.

All the MSP is looking for is if you’re a level headed person or are you some type of hot head. If you are a easy going level headed person that you’re HR or employer had nothing but good things to say about you, there is nothing wrong with passing that info along to the MSP. What legal issues can came from your employer from telling the MSP you have common sense and good judgment?

But just like my wife, if your HR does not have good things to say about you, (or if your company is so big they really do not know who you are) they will NOT want to pass along these bad things due to possible legal issues that could come from anything negative they may say about you. So they will just want to confirm to the MSP that you do work for them. No more and no less.

The MSP would not be facing any legal issues just because they asked some questions about you acting as the investigator. They are just asking questions and there is nothing wrong with that.

Employers protect themselves from legal issues that could come from an employee bring a case into court saying they have monetary damages from the loss of the job they were trying to get, that they did not get due to negative statements made from said employer.

If you found out somehow the reason you either lost or did not get a given job was from something they said about you, it is possible you could take them to court because you might be able to show damages in the way of lost money.

If you’re old or present boss told the MSP you were a wonderful person, now legal issues can come from that.

If you did not get a hand gun permit because of something your boss told the MSP, I think it would be hard or anyone to show damages a court would care about.

Now if the MSP did talk to that one person that told you that she would be outright hostile, even though she had nothing bad to say about me personally, to that MSP, I would guess this still would not harm your chances because the MSP investigates do a very good job at reading between the lines and will see this anti-gun person has an agenda. However if she were to make up something bad about you just so the anti-gunner stop you from getting your permit, she personal may have her own legal concerns your company may not want to back her up on.

Well typed!

I would go on the record as saying that my wife is a senior executive, and they have to be so careful, even with positive feedback on prior employees.

That was a real suprise.

Merlin said:

However if the employee was not a good working that my wife did not have anything good to say about, All my wife could do was confirm the employee did or still does work for her. No more, no less. She can't say any bad things about the employee. But that works for employers looking to hire. If they get an answer, "I can just confirm that Billy bob does work for us", with no good thing added in, the looking employer knows what that means. But if they call me wife and ask about Bill Bob's brother the GREAT worker, my wife can say all the good things she want to, to included she wish she had him back.

Click to expand...

I've heard, (haven interviewed for a job in over 30 years), that the prospective employer can ask "Would you rehire this person?"

Then the former employer can safely answer with a simple, "Yes", or "No".

Safetech said:

I've heard, (haven interviewed for a job in over 30 years), that the prospective employer can ask "Would you rehire this person?"

Then the former employer can safely answer with a simple, "Yes", or "No".

Click to expand...

I have heard lawyers recommend only answering if a person worked for the company, and dates employed. From what was explained to me a positive reference can lead to a lawsuit from the prospective employer if things go wrong, and the applicant can sue for a negative reference. I would like to hear an opinion from some of our members that are well versed in this.

Safetech said:

I've heard, (haven interviewed for a job in over 30 years), that the prospective employer can ask "Would you rehire this person?"

Then the former employer can safely answer with a simple, "Yes", or "No".

Click to expand...

I heard that as well and asked my wife about it sometime ago. She told me they can't answer that question because it is the same as saying something bad about the person if you're answer is "no".

hooligan82 said:

I have heard lawyers recommend only answering if a person worked for the company, and dates employed. From what was explained to me a positive reference can lead to a lawsuit from the prospective employer if things go wrong, and the applicant can sue for a negative reference. I would like to hear an opinion from some of our members that are well versed in this.

Click to expand...

I heard the same. They should only say the facts that will not get them tried up in a suit.

But remember the MSP is not looking to hire the person. I deduce they just want to find out if the person is responsible and stable.

Merlin said:

But remember the MSP is not looking to hire the person. I deduce they just want to find out if the person is responsible and stable.

Click to expand...

If they are fishing for mental illness as a disqualifier, then this would be a good indicator. People who have significant mental illness generally are not able to hold a job for an extended period of time. They often create a lot of chaos. When I applied, they did not contact my employer.

teratos said:

If they are fishing for mental illness as a disqualifier, then this would be a good indicator. People who have significant mental illness generally are not able to hold a job for an extended period of time. They often create a lot of chaos. When I applied, they did not contact my employer.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can say it's a clue and I would hope the MSP would not hang that on someone where it was not true. I personally do not have a problem if they prevent someone that does truly have mental illness from getting a permit. There are many very mentally healthy people that may not be able to hold it together under the kind of pressure one would be under if/when they are making a shoot/no shoot decision. I hope I never am put to the test.

But I think what the MSP are searching for is the maturity, responsibility, and good judgement someone needs to have to carry a hand gun. Personally I feel everyday less and less people have it. I work with a had full of very educated Engineers that are into and talk guns often at work. When they talk about carrying you would think they have the maturity of a group of 10 year old's.

This one guy was considering asking me to be one of his references. I can't tell you how I think this guy with a gun is a bad idea. He is VERY intelligent with the engineering work, but not an ounce of common sense god gave a pickle. You just have to know this guy to understand. When he tells you a story it is like talking to three people telling four stories all at the same time. My eyes just glaze over with all of the unnecessary twist and turns during a simple simple conversation.

You remember Hitler right? Well this guy I work with believes that everything Hitler did was not his fault. The reason you ask? Space aliens were controlling Hitler making him do everything he was doing.

One Monday after the weekend he was telling me how he went into this neighborhood to stop at a yard sale. So he parks and blocks a driveway of one of the houses down the street from the yard sale. Well the guy that lived in the house of the driveway that he was blocking needed to leave and as the stories goes the guy that lived in the house was not a diplomat with the way that he ask my coworker to move his car.

Well instead of just saying OK and moving his car, this guy got into this shouting match that was rapidly escalating to the point where my coworker told this homeowner that he was armed and for him not to come any closer. What's the big deal you say? The guy I work with was carrying a gun without a permit so he tells me. He is in this "I'm getting the last word" thing with a home owner out front of this homeowners house, u with a fire arm in his pocket that he announced that he would pull out if he needed to.

I'm just saying our culture is not producing the same amount of people with the necessary maturity and good judgment at it once did.

I have been wondering if the "What gun do you intend to carry?" question may also be a mental health query ... if you seriously answered something that is physically impossible to conceal or unobtainium neural neutralizer ... it would lead that way. If you give any reasonable answer ... its a pass.

Mark75H said:

I have been wondering if the "What gun do you intend to carry?" question may also be a mental health query ... if you seriously answered something that is physically impossible to conceal or unobtainium neural neutralizer ... it would lead that way. If you give any reasonable answer ... its a pass.

Click to expand...

I do think the reason for the question is to see how the wheels turn inside the head of the applicant in general. I feel it has everything to do with good decision, bad decisions thinking process. That question is asked to often to just to be written off as one gun guy talking to another gun guy. And again I say there is more to it than just mentally unhealthy they are looking for. There are plenty that fall on the mentally healthy side of the fence the MSP still have concerns about and look harder at then a search for mentally ill trying to get a carry permits.

Merlin said:

I do think the reason for the question is to see how the wheels turn inside the head of the applicant in general. I feel it has everything to do with good decision, bad decisions thinking process. That question is asked to often to just to be written off as one gun guy talking to another gun guy. And again I say there is more to it than just mentally unhealthy they are looking for. There are plenty that fall on the mentally healthy side of the fence the MSP still have concerns about and look harder at then a search for mentally ill trying to get a carry permits.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've pointed out the the MSP trooper that I wanted something that held 7 to 10 shots, and that if I need more than that the problem is likely beyond any normal situtation.

(My opinion of course, others may differ.)

That seemed to be taken well.