wolfdad
Older Shootin' Geek
In case you haven't seen the attached. More over-reach by the MSP.
In Case You Haven't Seen This
- Thread starter wolfdad
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
madmantrapper
Ultimate Member
Maybe I am missing something, but if you are using the clearance as good and substantial, I don't see the problem.
hodgepodge
Senior Member (Gold)
The problem is getting a "Security Manager" to provide such a letter. A normal employment verification, easily provided, is insufficient.
Government security personnel will not provide such a letter. Contractor security managers are hit or miss. Also, simple verification of the clearance level is not sufficient. They ask for A statement from the Security Manager confirming that you have routine and daily access to materials classified at your current clearance level.
This is despite the verified threats and the OPM hacks.
Government security personnel will not provide such a letter. Contractor security managers are hit or miss. Also, simple verification of the clearance level is not sufficient. They ask for A statement from the Security Manager confirming that you have routine and daily access to materials classified at your current clearance level.
This is despite the verified threats and the OPM hacks.
shooter682
Active Member
And the problem is not daily access it is the OPM Data Breach which has all of your information and your family information.
Last edited:
And Hogan is doing nothing about directing the MSP to accept self defense as a good and substantial reason...
teawhy
Member
Just to clarify, this is regarding a wear and carry permit, correct? And that allows for concealed carry? Forgive the stupid question. Haven't been a MD resident for very long and still learning the state laws.
Correct
I see one potentially insurmountable problem already:
I don't know but can pretty much guess Uncle Sugar is going to have a BIG issue with telling non-cleared people in MSP (and the rest of the world) about how often and at what level a cleared employee accesses secret info. That this would be a problem shouldn't have been hard to figure out. I respect FLD and know they have a hard job but honestly some of this stuff an eighth grader could figure out beforehand.
I don't know but can pretty much guess Uncle Sugar is going to have a BIG issue with telling non-cleared people in MSP (and the rest of the world) about how often and at what level a cleared employee accesses secret info. That this would be a problem shouldn't have been hard to figure out. I respect FLD and know they have a hard job but honestly some of this stuff an eighth grader could figure out beforehand.
What the MSP is asking for constitutes a security infraction, if my memory serves. That's why, as an OP above mentioned, most Federal security officials and all of the self-aware contractor FSOs will simply throw away the letter.
The MSP LD really does need to install a mirror, look into it several times a day, and realize they are not anywhere as Important as they think they are.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,908
Sadly, the fact that they can, and routinely do, deny people the means of self-protection indicates to me that they are in fact as important as they think they are. It's repulsive to watch them deny decent citizens their natural right to self-defense, especially when contrasted to all the surrounding states.
wolfdad
Older Shootin' Geek
MSP Letter
Just to clarify, JPAS is the database where all relevant government (not hacked yet, but give it time) individual security clearance data is held. It is a violation to print out, distribute or otherwise disseminate any/all JPAS information (any PSO, FSO or SSO can lose not only their JPAS access, but their clearance for this violation). BTW, for those of you reading, it is a federal violation to copy or allow to be copied, your CAC card, military ID card or retired military ID card. I was denied at the interview and the informal review levels because I am "retired" and, no longer require access to classified, which is a total BS argument. I am under non-disclosure agreements for the rest of my life (need to know and MSP doesn't) and still have knowledge at my still "active" clearance level that I cannot disclose. Plus, my last company has me on a part-time, on-call status, also documented (both telephonically and in writing by MSP). What is really bugging me is the fact that being "retired" seems to be a trip-wire for NO. The other question I have is since when does a first sergeant in the MSP dictate state firearms policy? And, IMHO, Hogan needs to grow a set and move forward. All I hear is "wait until the 2018 elections and maybe we will have enough delegates to allow Hogan to make a move." We are slowly falling into the "acceptance mode" vice the "fight" mode.
Just to clarify, JPAS is the database where all relevant government (not hacked yet, but give it time) individual security clearance data is held. It is a violation to print out, distribute or otherwise disseminate any/all JPAS information (any PSO, FSO or SSO can lose not only their JPAS access, but their clearance for this violation). BTW, for those of you reading, it is a federal violation to copy or allow to be copied, your CAC card, military ID card or retired military ID card. I was denied at the interview and the informal review levels because I am "retired" and, no longer require access to classified, which is a total BS argument. I am under non-disclosure agreements for the rest of my life (need to know and MSP doesn't) and still have knowledge at my still "active" clearance level that I cannot disclose. Plus, my last company has me on a part-time, on-call status, also documented (both telephonically and in writing by MSP). What is really bugging me is the fact that being "retired" seems to be a trip-wire for NO. The other question I have is since when does a first sergeant in the MSP dictate state firearms policy? And, IMHO, Hogan needs to grow a set and move forward. All I hear is "wait until the 2018 elections and maybe we will have enough delegates to allow Hogan to make a move." We are slowly falling into the "acceptance mode" vice the "fight" mode.
navycraig
Ultimate Member
I figure it's highly likely that MSP knows how difficult this information is going to be to obtain and that is the exact reason that they are asking for it.
Additionally, in our case, the command security manager does not have the authority to sign letterhead documents by direction of the Commanding Officer.
Additionally, in our case, the command security manager does not have the authority to sign letterhead documents by direction of the Commanding Officer.
You are correct. Pax River asked legal for their opinion on the matter, and legal said not to comply. Also, LD knows this, and claims every other agency has no problem doing this, but pax is being a stick in the mud.
brownspotz
Ultimate Member
- Oct 22, 2013
- 1,765
does the LD go home every night with a big smile and say " yep, another day with no permits approved is a good day."
Rambler
Doing the best with the worst.
- Oct 22, 2011
- 2,215
Previous posters are correct. There is no way any security manager or supervisor is going to divulge clearance info to MSP. They are just happily chugging along blocking one avenue after another that any honest citizen comes up with to get a permit.
navycraig
Ultimate Member
You are being too generic. NAS PAX (host command) has not had any requests for legal opinions on the matter. NAVAIR (tenant command) has.
That said, they are not being a stick in the mud. They are refusing to provide information that MSP should not be asking for in the first place. The information that they are asking for is provided by a system that specifically does not allow for that information to be provided to persons who do not have an official need to know. MSP does not have a need to know.
MSP stating the every other agency is providing the information is overly broad and incorrect. With a few minor exceptions that I'm aware of, DoD, by and large is not providing the information. It would be wrong of them to do so.
navycraig
Ultimate Member
Not that it'll do any good, but I sent an email to MSP outlining some of the errors of their request. We'll see if I get a reply.
MSP is well aware of NAVAIR pax's legal opinion. Personally I think their requirement is written specifically to ask for what NAVAIR won't provide. Security has suggested other options that are permissible, that MSP refuses to accept.
navycraig
Ultimate Member
I agree. MSP is asking for it because they know they won't get it and that will allow them to not approve applications.
Once this get rolling they will point to a few instances where some agencies are providing the information and use that as justification as to why all should.
You know, this has gotten absurd. Where is Hogan on all this? This kind of conduct goes far, far beyond just "following the law" and requiring "good and substantial."
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (13 Viewers)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
